Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Pig Industry

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What support he will give to pig farmers seeking compensation for the costs of BSE-related food safety measures. [103771]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): My overall priority is to remove BSE from the cattle herd in order to maintain confidence in the whole of British agriculture. I recognise, as the previous Government did, that pursuing that policy imposes additional costs on the British livestock industry, including the pig industry. I have twice asked the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to look at the issues, particularly as they apply to the pig industry.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that way back on 20 October he said:
The problem requires a further considered response from the Government. I am working very hard on it, and I hope to have something new and comprehensive to tell the House in a matter of days."—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 465.]
Nothing has happened. On 9 November, he told the Select Committee on Agriculture that he was "incredibly sympathetic" on the issue. He assured the Committee:
I want to explore everything the Government can do that will help".
Nothing has happened. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman take immediate action, as many, including the National Pig Association, have recommended, and respond to the statement and the letter from the

Agriculture Commissioner—of which I have a copy—by opening negotiations? The Commissioner has offered his help, but nothing has happened on that.

Mr. Brown: My officials are in touch with the Commission and we are exploring those matters. It is not true to say that nothing has happened. Together with the Meat and Livestock Commission, I went back to SEAC to see whether there was some way of achieving a commercial value of the meat and bonemeal for the industry consistent with the need for public protection measures. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, at the end of December the advisory committee said, disappointingly from the industry's point of view, that it was not willing to recommend that.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Like all hon. Members, I recognise the desperate plight of the pig industry. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the response to his efforts to increase awareness of the higher pig production welfare standards in this country? Like the measures that relate to BSE, those higher standards inevitably increase UK production costs. Or do people who are prepared to write to Members of Parliament asking them to vote for higher welfare standards then prefer to buy cheap imports when the laws are passed?

Mr. Brown: I am not satisfied that we are doing enough to secure the premium that the industry ought to be able to gain in the marketplace. I have secured some extra money for marketing initiatives and made it clear that the pig sector has a first call on it. I hope that it will be possible this year to do more to explain to consumers the advantages of UK production methods—not just the fact that the process is free of meat and bonemeal, but that the pigs are raised free of stall and tether systems. Those are the animal welfare standards that our constituents asked us to vote for back in 1991.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that British pig farmers are unique in facing extra costs because of the BSE crisis? They are going out of production while their international competitors stay in production. When the market picks up, yet another British industry will no longer exist to supply it. Will he assure the industry that if any way can be found in Europe to see our farmers through the crisis by helping with their BSE costs, he and the Treasury will find the money?

Mr. Brown: As I said in my answer to the initial question, I acknowledge, as the previous Government did, that this country's public safety measures impose extra costs on the livestock industry. Those costs are not confined to the cattle sector, but impact on the pig sector. The Government have never sought to disguise the fact that the sector is in crisis. I have tried to devise workable measures that will help to get the industry through. We have discussed a range of measures in the House. I intend to continue with my efforts.

Mrs. Janet Dean: Many people would choose to buy British if they could be sure that the labelling was correct. What progress is being made to ensure that labelling accurately reflects the country of origin?

Mr. Brown: As the House will know, I have put the trading standards guidelines issued by Department out to consultation. We have the results of that consultation and I hope to have more to say about that within a matter of days. My hon. Friend is right. If we are asking consumers to support the industry, they must have clear and accurate information.

Mr. William Thompson: The Minister of Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland recently announced £1 million of European state aid to pig farmers there, particularly relating to the border counties. What does the Minister know about that? If the Republic of Ireland can get state aid from the European Union for its pig farmers, why cannot he get it for our pig farmers in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brown: I am meeting my counterpart, Joe Walsh, this month to discuss these and other issues on which we have a shared interest, but I suspect that Minister Walsh will say that the United Kingdom Government paid out aid following the fire in Northern Ireland and that the industry in southern Ireland is claiming to be similarly affected. I suspect that that will be his reply, but I await discussions with the Minister.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that as pig farmers are going out of business in the United Kingdom, an increasing number of people are going into the pork industry elsewhere in the EU. Given the strength of the pound, would not this be a good time for us to subsidise pig feed as the cost of grain is a significant factor due to the health and welfare standards that have rightly been introduced? Would not subsidising the cost of feed be a good way of helping the industry at this time?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are unique features to the crisis in the United Kingdom, but the crisis itself is not unique to the United Kingdom. The EU market is oversupplied and there are difficulties in the pig sector in the United States and eastern Europe. The problem is not confined to the EU. I cannot unilaterally introduce specific state aids just for the United Kingdom as that would breach the agreement that we have made in the EU.

Mr. Tim Yeo: The Minister is presiding over the biggest fall in the United Kingdom pig herd and the largest number of job losses in pig farming in any recent period. It took him a year even to issue a consultation document about guidance on labelling; it took him four months and a great deal of prodding by the Conservatives—[Interruption.] The Minister seems to find it amusing,—before he troubled to carry out his promise to the House to write to public authorities urging

them to make their pig meat purchases from sources which meet UK standards. He misled the House, or very nearly, on that matter—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The charge of misleading the House is a very serious one. I have not misled the House.

Madam Speaker: Exactly. I am about to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Yeo: I withdraw the charge of misleading the House. Let me recount the facts. On 1 July the Minister told the House that he would have letters on his desk ready to go out to public authorities. When Conservative Members questioned him four months later, those letters had not been sent. I am happy to put those facts on the record now, but the question is how many more hundreds or thousands of pig farmers will lose their businesses before the Minister offers any practical steps to meet the £5 a pig in extra costs that have been imposed on farmers for public health reasons.

Mr. Brown: The last Conservative Government, who introduced the meat and bonemeal regulations, did not meet the costs either. In a previous debate on the matter—this is much trawled ground—when I asked the hon. Gentleman why not, he said that the economic circumstances were different. Of course that answer ruined any case that we might make to the Commission as, on the hon. Gentleman's own definition, it would be a case for economic aid. The Commission would have to reject any such request.
The hon. Gentleman is doing down the British pig farmers. He referred to the letters to local authorities. They were part of a co-ordinated campaign with the industry that we agreed to launch in the autumn rather than in the summer when people would be away and the campaign would become unfocused. That has been explained to the House before. The Conservatives were in government for 18 years. None of the measures that they urge upon me now was put into practice when they were in government.

HLCA

Mr. Gerald Howarth: What assessment he has made of the impact of proposed changes to the hill livestock compensatory allowances on hill farmers' incomes. [103772]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): There will be some changes in support between producers but the impact will vary according to their individual circumstances. The changes are being introduced gradually so that producers have time to adjust, but we believe they are part of the positive agricultural and rural development strategy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his statement to the House on 7 December 1999.

Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the Minister will recognise that Aldershot is not over-endowed with hills,


let alone hill fanners, but my family have fanned the hills of the borders of Scotland for centuries. Is the Minister aware of the serious crisis that is affecting hill farmers throughout the United Kingdom? Their incomes are forecast to fall to a mere £2,000 and only 15 per cent. of hill farmers are aged under 40. The industry has also been hit severely by the huge rises in petrol and diesel taxes. Will she confirm that the Government will not reduce the level of financial support to those custodians of our remote rural heritage until such time as average incomes have returned to acceptable and adequate levels? If so, will she set out what she considers those levels to be?

Ms Quin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the important question of hill fanning, despite the fact that hill farmers are not numerous in Aldershot. I hope that he will recognise that the Government have shown commitment to hill fanning through the measures that we have taken. Indeed, the maintenance of the £60 million increase in the hill livestock compensatory allowance this year is a clear example. The measures that we have announced recognise the environmental and social role that hill farming plays in our countryside as well as the important question of the livelihoods of hill farmers.

Mr. Barry Jones: What new research has my right hon. Friend initiated into the future of the communities on the upper slopes? Does she acknowledge the great difficulties in growing meat on those hill sides, which are cold, wet and sour, and where family farms are now at considerable risk? Does she agree that the greater problem is the very communities on the uplands, not least in Wales? What new initiatives can be taken, bearing in mind that it is obvious that the Ministry wishes to help?

Ms Quin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. We have pursued the issue in several ways—partly by direct support and partly through the consultation that the Ministry undertook on the future of the hill farming sector and payments to hill farmers. We believe that the proposals that we made strike a good balance between economic and environmental considerations and we are aware that great concern is felt throughout the House, my right hon. Friend's constituency and the country that we get those considerations right.

Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that her consultation paper was a tribute to the literacy of British farmers? Does she agree that the amount available for the scheme in England is falling from £42 million to £27 million? Does she further agree that if she really wants to gain environmental benefits from the scheme it will eventually have to be differentiated according to land cover and the carrying capacity of the land? Otherwise, one flat rate scheme will simply be replaced by another and the Minister's aims will not be delivered.

Ms Quin: The latter point is a serious and important one, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of those considerations. The consultation process was worth while because of the responses that we received. Indeed, the written consultation was only part of the process, because we also had consultations about the implementation of Agenda 2000 generally in meetings

throughout the country with hill farmers and others. We are determined to keep that dialogue going. What is being proposed is only one element of the support for hill farming. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, most of the subsidy that goes to hill farmers will continue as livestock payments.

Mr. Russell Brown: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the cost to taxpayers in direct payments to hill farmers is some £700 million a year? Despite that sum, hill farmers are still in a difficult situation. Is not it time that we looked again at the way in which supporting hill farmers has not been as helpful as we would have expected and hoped it to be and that we tried to make that support more effective?

Ms Quin: I can confirm the figure that my hon. Friend quoted, which shows that hill farmers receive a large amount of financial support. However, I should also like to commend to the House the direction in which Government policy is moving. In the negotiations in which we have taken part we have achieved some success in changing the thrust of common agricultural policy support, away from direct payments and towards more general rural development. Our proposals in relation to the UK will help hill farming change the basis of its finance and support in the future.
However, given the severity of the current depression in agriculture, we must accept that such measures must be introduced gradually to avoid tremendous disruption.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Government are very proud of their introduction of the national minimum wage, but most hill farmers earn nothing like that amount. They farm some of the most difficult areas of our countryside, which would be a lot poorer without their stewardship. They ask me what their future will be: how would the Minister respond to that question?

Ms Quin: The answer is that the Government are providing substantial levels of support for such farmers, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I. We are delighted to have introduced the national minimum wage. The Conservative party opposed that, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is a dissident on the issue. However, we have also supported the continuation of minimum arrangements for agricultural workers.

Organic Farming

Mr. Alan Simpson: What plans he has to increase support for organic farm conversion. [103773]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): On 7 December 1999, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the Government's plans for spending on the rural development programme for England. Under these plans, £140 million will be available over the life of the programme for aid for conversion to organic farming.

Mr. Simpson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking organic farming seriously—something that the previous Conservative did not do in their 18-year dynasty of


agricultural disasters. However, will he confirm that the legacy of neglect from those years still leaves the UK with less than 1.5 per cent. of its agricultural land devoted to organic farming production? That is less than half the European average, in terms of investment in organic farming.
The Welsh Assembly has set a target of achieving 10 per cent. organic production by 2005. The Danish Government have set a target of trebling organic fanning production by the same date, and of having 50 per cent. of all agricultural production coming from organic farms by 2010. In Austria, 10 per cent. of agricultural production already is organic, and the country plans to take that level to 50 per cent. in some sectors within a couple of years.
Will the Minister come back to the House and set targets for organic farm production in the UK so that we will be back among the best in Europe, rather than just one of the rest?

Mr. Morley: The latest figures show that 3 per cent. of land has been converted to organic farming. Since last April, the area of such land has increased by 400 per cent. In the five years up to last April, only 400 fanners undertook that conversion, but since last April, 1,200 have done so. That shows the depth of the Government's commitment to organic farming.
My hon. Friend asked about targets. Targets can be useful in terms of fixing aspirations and underlining commitment, and the Government have studied the matter carefully. However, we want to expand the organic sector only to the extent that the market will accept. If targets are set too high—if production is driven on beyond what the market can stand—the market can be damaged. If they are set too low, there is no incentive for continued expansion.
We consider that we should expand organic farming in an open-ended way, as far as the market will allow. That huge boost of £140 million in the rural development programme will allow us to do that.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that £140 million is nothing like enough? Given the increased demand in this country for organic food, and the fact that the high prices militate against poorer people who are excluded from buying these products at a time when more and more people are concerned about additives, does not the hon. Gentleman think that he should reassess the budget and support for organic farmers? The Government must recognise that times have changed and that more money should be made available.

Mr. Morley: We are currently reviewing the organic sector and the rates of payment. However, I remind Opposition Members that the Government have doubled the rates of conversion payment, which is why there has been a massive increase in organic conversion. We see this as the beginning, not the end. This substantial amount of money allows great expansion. We will keep the situation under review.

Joan Ruddock: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very large increase in money for conversion? But may I remind him that the money that the Government give to research and

development in organic farming is just one third of the money given to research in genetic engineering in agriculture? Given the huge demand for organic food in recent times, particularly by people who wish to avoid eating genetically modified organisms, will my hon. Friend consider raising that research and development budget to reflect the concerns of consumers and give a very much needed boost to British agriculture?

Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has been very active in promoting the organic sector. However, I must correct her on one point: the actual budget for genetic research is very similar to that for organic research. I think that my hon. Friend is confusing that with the biotechnology budget, which covers issues such as research into the effects of pesticides on food.
We have doubled the budget as part of our commitment to the organic sector. It is important to maintain not just support for research and development but practical advice to the organic information helpline. We shall be considering those issues in the current review.

Mr. Colin Breed: In the light of the Minister's plans to support organic farming, would he consider protecting organic farmers from cross-pollination from GM crops? Is he aware of today's independent report from the National Pollen Research Unit, which indicates that there is a high risk of cross-pollination between source and recipient fields for as much as up to 4 km? Farmers converting to organic production need protection as well as aid. In advance of the spring planting, will the Minister take action to increase the very inadequate isolation distances between such fields?

Mr. Morley: The separation distances between organic and GM crops are based on current best practice, which has been in place for many years. The Government are funding detailed research on cross-pollination and potential cross-contamination. The research is being carried out by a consortium led by the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology. It is looking into the whole issue, including aspects such as headlands and field margins. Wildlife will also be sampled, including vascular plants, arthropods and, on the ground, so will plants, caterpillars, slugs, snails, bees, butterflies, seed banks and earthworms.
A great deal of research is being carried out into GM and organic crops. If it demonstrates that the present separation differences which, as I said, are based on established practice, are inadequate, there will be changes to the guidelines.

World Trade

Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on the progress in talks to liberalise world trade in agricultural products. [103776]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Negotiations on the further liberalisation of agricultural trade were mandated by the 1994 World Trade Organisation agreement on agriculture. The negotiations will go ahead this year in spite of the suspension in Seattle of talks on a wider round of trade


negotiations. The agricultural negotiations are based on article 20 of the agreement on agriculture, which follows the Uruguay round.

Mr. Luff: I thank the Minister for that helpful clarification. Does he agree that trade liberalisation poses many challenges and threats, and offers many opportunities to United Kingdom food and farming industries? That is why the Agriculture Committee has made it one of its major subjects of inquiry in this Session. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a major threat to UK animal welfare standards? Will he give the House a reassurance that he will put at the centre of his negotiating strategy the concerns of British farmers who wish to maintain high standards of animal welfare, but risk being undercut by cheaper imports from countries with much lower standards?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, he will know that I take animal welfare issues very seriously indeed. I have raised the point that he made at the Council of Ministers—formally, on behalf of the UK Government, and separately, in the margins, with the Commission and with other Ministers. There is a view among EU Ministers that animal welfare issues are important, but that we must protect the EU from exporting its industries. As we set higher standards internally, we must put our industries at a competitive advantage. The task for Ministers is to find a way of preserving the animal welfare polices for which we strive and of improving them, but to do so in a non-trade distorting manner.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: When my right hon. Friend holds negotiations on the world trade in agricultural products, will he push for a change in the classification of livestock from agricultural products to sentient beings—as has already been done in the EU? If that change were adopted worldwide, it would not only be a tremendous boost for British farmers, but would be widely supported throughout the whole country.

Mr. Brown: There are several possible ways forward. The important point is to achieve our objectives and to do so in a non-trade distorting way. The danger for the EU is that we increase standards within the EU, but find that we have exported our industries. That would be a defeat for animal welfare as well as for farmers. We are trying to avoid that.

Mr. Roger Gale: The right hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that when animal welfare considerations have been raised at previous World Trade Organisation discussions, they have always eventually been used as a trade-off for issues that other people regard as more important. Will he give the House an absolute assurance that animal welfare—to UK standards—is at the top of his agenda, and that it will not be used merely as a bargaining chip for other issues?

Mr. Brown: Animal welfare is an important—indeed integral—part of the UK's agenda for these complex discussions on agricultural reform and trade liberalisations; it most certainly is not a bargaining chip for other pieces of the negotiation.

Food Standards Agency (EU)

Mr. Gordon Prentice: If he has been consulted on the European Commission's proposals for a food standards agency; and if he will make a statement. [103777]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The European Commission published a White Paper on food safety yesterday, outlining proposals for such a body. The Government support the idea in principle, and will consider the detailed proposals in the White Paper carefully.

Mr. Prentice: That is good. However, over recent years we have all been sickened by stomach churning tales of sewage in animal feedstuffs, dioxins in meat in Belgium, antibiotic growth promoters, salmonella, listeria and BSE—what a catalogue. Following yesterday's announcement, there are suggestions in the press that this new European food standards agency is neither fish nor fowl—[Interruption.] A louder groan please. But seriously, what will be the relationship between the European food standards agency and the domestic Food Standards Agency? Would the Government prefer the European agency to have regulatory powers, or simply to be advisory?

Ms Quin: We need to ensure that European decisions and our national safeguards are complementary. We also need a system whereby European rules—once agreed by all member states—are properly implemented. In introducing his proposals yesterday, Commissioner Byrne expressed confidence that they would deliver a more effective system both as regards consumer confidence and for the operation of the EU market where EU rules had clearly been agreed. We welcome those assurances, but as more detailed proposals will be submitted, which will be discussed by national Governments as well as by the European institutions, it will be important to ensure that the detail is correct.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Yesterday's announcement presages a European food authority. Can the Minister confirm that the initial proposals envisage the appointment of 150 officials in the short term, rising to a total of 600, and that one of their tasks will be to produce something like 84 additional legislative measures, including a new hygiene directive? Does the Minister accept that it is most likely that all of that new legislation from Europe will override national legislation? Is not this another instance of competence passing from this House to the European Community?
Was the launch of our own Food Standards Agency yesterday deliberately timed to coincide with the White Paper launched in Brussels yesterday? Does this explain the acceleration of the progress of the Food Standards Bill through the last Session of Parliament? Is there—

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that those are enough questions to be going on with.

Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman's comments have left me mystified by the Opposition's policy. Is it a policy of allowing each country to do what it wants, which seems


to be a recipe for chaos? Or is it one of seeking to have an effective system in the internal market, which the Opposition tell us they support? What the hon. Gentleman says is at enormous variance with what the Conservative party's agriculture spokesmen in the European Parliament seem to be saying. They want a bigger European Union body, not a smaller one.

Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the improvement of food standards across Europe is of great importance to my constituents, who are concerned about the safety of food coming into this country? Will she assure me that our Food Standards Agency will play an important role in ensuring that the standards across Europe—with or without its own agency—will be improved? I welcome the appointment of Sir John Krebs, as having such an eminent scientist at the head of our FSA will be extremely important in driving up standards across Europe, as well as at home.

Ms Quin: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, particularly the latter ones. We believe that the appointment of Sir John Krebs—and the rest of the governing body of the FSA—is good news. There is a good balance, and there are people with excellent qualifications to ensure a successful start to the FSA. I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents, and I can assure her and the House that we have been proactive in this respect. We have worked with the Commission and given it information about our work on food safety and on the way in which the Government have implemented our manifesto pledge on setting up our own Food Standards Agency.

Mr. Tim Yeo: At a time when the European Commission cannot even make the single market rules apply to France on the issue of British beef exports, why does the Minister believe that it is sensible to establish a huge new costly and bureaucratic agency, whose advice would no doubt be followed meticulously in Britain at great cost to British producers, but would be ignored by many producers abroad—and thus would reinforce the unlevel playing field that is already doing so much damage to British industry?

Ms Quin: Again, the hon. Gentleman's comments seem to be completely at variance with what Conservative MEPs are saying. They say that they want a bigger and, presumably, more expensive body. We want a system whereby countries which have accepted rules actually respect and implement them. In that respect, I very much welcome some of the ideas in the Commission's White Paper, which will be looked at in detail. For example, there is a proposal that the European Commission be empowered to fine members for breaching EU food standards, without having to wait for a court ruling. That is particularly relevant, given our present dispute with the French.

Farm Businesses

Mr. Brian White: What action he is taking to assist in the development of economically viable farm businesses. [103778]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): As I announced in the House on 7 December 1999, I am redirecting some farming support and the Government are providing new funding to provide more help for fanners to modernise, to diversify and to farm in a more environmentally beneficial way. I am also providing support for improved marketing. I am studying the reports of the three working groups that I set up to review regulatory burdens.

Mr. White: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the rural development plan—and, in particular, the extra money that he has secured from the Treasury—has been widely welcomed. Does he accept that the knee-jerk reaction of the Opposition in calling for more subsidies and fewer taxes is not the way forward? Will he require, under the forthcoming rural White Paper, organisations such as regional development agencies, planning authorities and so on to pay more heed to farmers' voices?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the way forward for British agriculture is to get closer to the marketplace. It should consider the demand side rather than try to supplement the supply side of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman will know that I, like many Members, have hundreds of upland farmers in my constituency whose businesses are no longer viable. What positive advice and assistance can he give such farmers in the midst of this crisis? If he has none, is not it time for him to step aside and make way for a Minister who will take the crisis seriously?

Mr. Brown: In view of the substantial amount of support that I have announced since I became the Minister responsible for those who farm less-favoured areas, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are unfair and unworthy. The truth is that there is a great deal in the rural development plan for hill farmers. They should proportionately be the beneficiaries of what has been announced.

Mr. David Taylor: The rural development plan is most welcome in country areas, such as those that I and my colleagues represent. Is my right hon. Friend optimistic that it will herald the end of the annual emergency aid cycle of packages to farmers and replace that with sustainable support that will produce a viable and profitable method of agriculture?

Mr. Brown: It is my objective to get away from emergency aid packages that consider the supply side—they have been the only way of providing immediate assistance to the sector—and to move towards sustainable policies that will give the industry support in a way that is decoupled from production and less vulnerable to the short-term effects of the marketplace. That is the thinking behind the rural development measure.

Mr. James Paice: I want to return to consideration of the pig industry, which is one of the least economically viable of all agricultural industries. Twice in his earlier comments, the Minister said that the BSE controls on pigs were to do with public protection and public safety. Those were his words, and


I think that that will be proven in Hansard. Therefore, will he explain the difference between a British pig farmer who, for public safety, suffers innocently from those BSE controls but receives no support from the European Union or the Government, and a Belgian pig farmer who suffered equally innocently from the dioxin controls but received compensation from the EU?
Rather than blaming the Opposition for what we did or did not do in government, will the Minister turn his concern into action, go to the Commission—not send an official—and make the case that British pig farmers should be compensated for those public safety controls?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman believes so passionately in the case that he has just put, why did not his Government do precisely that when the regulations were introduced? [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members shouting that that is not the question—it is precisely the question that the Commission would ask me if we were to make such a request. In speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said that it viewed such an intervention as economic aid. That would rule out the Commission giving permission for it.

Common Fisheries Policy

Dr. Julian Lewis: What progress he has made in securing the support of his European counterparts for the reform of the common fisheries policy. [103780]

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What steps he is taking to reform the common fisheries policy. [103781]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government will continue to take every opportunity to secure improvements to the common fisheries policy, to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks while securing the best possible conditions for the UK industry.
Given the recent tragic news, I am sure that the whole House will join me when I express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the crew of the Solway Harvester, which was recently lost in the Irish sea.

Dr. Lewis: I am sure that the whole House endorses what the Minister has just said about the tragedy of the Solway Harvester.
In the Minister's negotiations with his European colleagues about the common fisheries policy, the Government do not seem to have had much success on the issue of landing sizes, for which restrictions on 11 categories of fish have recently been removed. Fish in eight of those categories have a good chance of survival if they are returned to the sea. Will not the removal of restrictions have a seriously damaging effect on future fish stocks?

Mr. Morley: Minimum landing sizes are an important issue, but they must be associated with technical conservation measures. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong—we reversed the minimum landing size reduction

on plaice, for example, and we negotiated with other European countries to make it possible to do that unilaterally if the Commission did not agree.

Mr. Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that he made at the Fisheries Council because he did an extremely good job in a difficult situation. Fishermen in Hastings and Rye are in any case natural conservationists and they acknowledge and accept the need for some reductions. How will my hon. Friend make sure that other nation states are equally effective in enforcing the new provisions?

Mr. Morley: When I met fishermen from my hon. Friend's constituency they made several important points about conservation, which influenced the recent consultation on the inshore sector, and which we have extended to the whole UK sector. To ensure that there is equal enforcement, the new control measures introduced by the European Union will, for the first time, ensure that the same standards of enforcement and control are applied across all member states, and there is an element of independent inspection by the Commission itself to make sure that that is the case.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is very disappointing that in three quarters of an hour we have reached only eight questions. I am sure that many Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers are very disappointed, too. I am sorry that I have not been able to call many of the hon. Members who have been rising, wanting to speak on most of the issues. I hope that we can make better progress, not only at Agriculture questions, but at all questions, and that questions as well as answers are not as long as they are now tending to be.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Rights of Access

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on rights of access to prosecuting lawyers by victims of crime. [R] [103802]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): There are professional rules of conduct that govern how much communication a prosecution advocate can have with a witness in a criminal case. In some circumstances, however, direct contact between the victim and the prosecutor is both important and necessary either before or after the trial. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Law Officers are committed to ensuring that direct contact does take place in appropriate circumstances.

Dr. Lewis: I declare an interest because I was a witness in a case in which the conditions were skewed greatly toward the defendant because he had direct access to his lawyers, whereas I, as the alleged victim, had little or no access to the lawyers bringing the prosecution case. If the Solicitor-General is saying that he is satisfied with the present situation, I must tell him that many victims of


crime are not. Will he consider more closely ensuring access by victims of crime to the lawyers who are supposed to be bringing the prosecution, with a view to evening up that unjust imbalance?

The Solicitor-General: The House will know that we take very seriously the position of victims, and we are considering a range of measures to improve that. There has been extensive discussion with the hon. Gentleman, who was the subject of untrue and scurrilous allegations. A prosecution was undertaken, but unfortunately that failed for technical reasons on appeal. I explained in my answer, and it has been explained to the hon. Gentleman, that the prosecutor is acting not for the victim, but in the public interest. There has to be some access to those lawyers, but the situation is not the same as with defence counsel, who represent a particular person.

Mr. David Kidney: The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) has a good point. One way to open a channel of communication with victims would be through the use of victim impact statements. If we could avoid the excesses of the American system of using statements, they would be a valuable tool to enable the courts and prosecutors to understand the victims' point of view and the effect of the crime on them. Are any discussions taking place to try to introduce a reasonable system for using victim impact statements in British courts?

The Solicitor-General: The Home Office is considering a range of measures, including victim impact statements. There has been a pilot project and a report was produced shortly before Christmas. There are difficulties, but they are not insuperable. The Home Office is considering those and other measures.

European Convention on Human Rights

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When (a) he and (b) the Attorney-General last met the Secretary of State for the Home Department to discuss the implementation of the European convention on human rights. [103803]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Attorney-General and I regularly meet the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers to discuss matters of common interest, including human rights. In addition, I am a member of the human rights task force, which is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), and which includes representatives from a range of human rights groups.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. and learned Friend counsel my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that there is a serious deficiency in our statute law in relation to our obligations under the European convention on human rights? European judges will note that the Crown has been reminded of this by the British legislature. We have no public interest defence under the Official Secrets Act 1989. No doubt the Ponting jury took account of that.
The French courts, recently and embarrassingly for the United Kingdom, declined to meet our extradition requests in relation to David Shayler. The Foreign Office

is embarrassed when trying to argue on behalf of, for example, people in the Russian Federation who have leaked information about the deterioration of nuclear weapons and nuclear plants. It is time that we remedied the omission by ensuring that there are adequate defence opportunities when charges are made under the Official Secrets Act.

The Solicitor-General: The Human Rights Act 1998 does not amend the Official Secrets Act 1989. My hon. Friend will know that all legislation, including the Official Secrets Act, must be interpreted in conformity with the Human Rights Act. In addition, all public authorities, including the security services, must act in conformity with that Act. In any prosecution, including one under the Official Secrets Act, the defendant can raise a human rights point. That three-pronged attack does not exactly address my hon. Friend's concern, but it may give him some comfort.

Mr. John Burnett: In the interests of open government, will the Solicitor-General explain to the House the process adopted by the Government before a statement of compatibility with the convention is added to a Bill?

The Solicitor-General: Every Minister must sign a certificate and every Minister receives detailed advice from his or her lawyers. In some cases, my Department will be involved. There will be a detailed statement, which will go to the Cabinet Committee on Legislation. The section 19 statement is backed by a detailed analysis undertaken by Government officials.

Mr. John Bercow: Does not the European convention on human rights give the right to parents to ensure that their children can be educated in accordance with the philosophical convictions of those parents? Might not the convention prove an invaluable tool and defence mechanism in the event that the malicious and stupid regulations of the Government were to lead to the abolition of a single grammar school?

The Solicitor-General: Some of the hon. Gentleman's comments are tendentious—[Interruption.] In fact, all of them are. He is right to say that parents have a right to educate their children as they wish. However, there is a range of other rights as well, all of which are important.

CPS

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What measures are being taken to ensure that the views of the Crown Prosecution Service at all levels are taken into account as the reforms of the CPS are implemented. [103804]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Proper consultation with all staff is essential for the reform programme. The CPS is approaching that in an open and inclusive way. The trade unions have been consulted throughout and the membership of the working groups steering the reforms in the CPS has been drawn widely from across the service. The CPS has also set up a


sounding-board network, which is designed to provide an additional regular forum for staff at all levels to inform and monitor the reforms.

Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. When I visited the CPS office in Canterbury before the reforms were announced, I found the staff there very much looking forward to the reforms and wanting to be closely involved in making them work. Will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that senior CPS staff will be visiting local area offices and talking to staff at all levels to receive their feedback? Will he also assure me that trade unionists in local branches will be involved? Will there be anything more formal and objective than the sounding board appears to be, which will ensure that the views of all staff are taken into account?

The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting his local office. I received a detailed report of that visit, which was obviously useful. More detailed work than I specified in the initial answer is being done. A survey and stress audit among all members of staff is to be carried out. The trade unions are closely involved—for example, trade union representatives sit on the equality committee and the working group on race. There is a regular programme of visits by managers, and the Attorney-General and I also have a regular system of visiting all offices around the country.

Mr. Edward Garnier: One of the matters that the Solicitor-General will no doubt want to take into account is the current and future budget of the Crown Prosecution Service. How much will the CPS have spent on its own behalf and on behalf of Spain in the Pinochet case, and what proportion of the CPS's annual budget does that sum represent?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot give the detailed figures, but I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Questions have been answered on the matter. As a result of a decision of the divisional court, the arrangement in this country is that the CPS acts as the agent of a foreign state—in the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised, Spain—and accepts instructions, as does any lawyer from a client. That arrangement was laid down by the divisional court. Some may question that policy, but that is the law. I will come back to the hon. and learned Gentleman with the detailed response to his inquiries.

Dr. George Turner: My own visit to the local Crown Prosecution Service left me less than overwhelmed by the support provided by information

technology. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that efficient IT, which any modernised prosecution service needs, will be available to the CPS?

The Solicitor-General: Again, I commend my hon. Friend for visiting his local CPS. IT is important. The CPS does not have sufficient IT. At a previous Question Time, I said that under the modernisation programme from the Treasury, the CPS has £12 million to introduce IT. That will be done in the near future. There is also a more detailed programme to ensure that the criminal justice system is joined-up, IT-wise, so that the police can communicate with the prosecutors, the courts and so on.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What measures his Department uses to monitor the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service in terms of cases taken forward for prosecution. [103805]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The performance of the Crown Prosecution Service is monitored against a range of measures. Those include the proportion of dismissals—no case to answer—in magistrates courts and non-jury acquittals in the Crown court, where the outcome is attributable to failure in the review process. Information on the number and proportion of cases resulting in an adverse outcome, and on the reason for that result, is collected by the CPS and is used to identify areas requiring improvement.

Mr. O'Brien: I listened carefully to the Solicitor-General's answer and to the answers he has given previously, which have been of a general nature. What practical steps are being taken specifically to liaise with the victims of crime and to keep them informed of the progress of cases? How about a weekly or fortnightly telephone call, e-mail or letter? That contact should be measured, so that victims of crime can monitor how matters are progressing from their point of view.

The Solicitor-General: I can tell the House that we are piloting recommendations made in the Macpherson and the Glidewell reports that the CPS should be the contact with the victim. At present, the police are the contact. That means that sometimes messages may be garbled. We are working towards a system where the prosecutors will be the point of contact with victims, which should greatly improve the arrangements to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) referred earlier.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Can the Solicitor-General examine the processes that resulted in the possibly malicious prosecution of two people in Cambridge—known as the Cambridge Two—

Madam Speaker: Order. The case is subject to appeal and is therefore sub judice.

Business of the House

Sir Patrick Cormack: May I ask the Leader of the House if she would be kind enough to announce the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Meeting the Needs of Pensioners" followed by a debate entitled "Protecting Post Office Services". Both motions will arise in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
TUESDAY 18 JANUARY—Opposition Day [3rd Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The Government's Mismanagement of Health Care in the United Kingdom" followed by a debate entitled "The Rising Cost and Reduced Accountability of Central Government". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions. They will be followed by a motion to approve the Administration Committee Report on the Line of Route.
WEDNESDAY 19 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.
Second Reading of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.
Second Reading of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill.
THURSDAY 20 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Electronic Communications Bill.
Debate on the Braithwaite Report on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Disqualifications Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY—Progress of remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
THURSDAY 27 JANUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
FRIDAY 28 JANUARY—The first day of debating private Members' Bills.
It may be convenient for the House to know that the Easter recess will take place the week after Easter rather than the previous week.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for next week and the following week. I also wish her a happy new year. I thank her for giving us an indication of the date of the Easter recess. Although we do not ask for a week off in February, can she state whether there will be such a week off so that hon. Members and members of staff can make appropriate

arrangements? If it is not announced soon, there is no point in having it—perhaps many of us would prefer that to be so.
Can the Leader of the House confirm which parts of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House, following the Home Secretary's statement earlier this week? Can she also confirm that the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords is expected to report next week? Will there be a statement in the House and an early debate? Will the Government make plain their intentions for the joint Committee of both Houses, and will a Minister represent the Government on that Committee?
In the light of yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, does the right hon. Lady accept that there is an urgent need for the defence debate that we have requested? It is unfortunate that such an important statement was made without debate in the House. Does she accept that yesterday's extraordinary statement by the Home Secretary underlines the need for a debate at the appropriate time not only on what is called the Pinochet affair, but on the inconsistency of the Government's treatment of aged people who are accused of serious crimes?
Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the House is kept regularly informed of the state of the influenza epidemic? In view of her creditable record of dealing with the millennium bug, will she ensure that the Government get better at dealing with the flu bug? May we have the date of the Budget statement, again so that Members can make appropriate arrangements, and, as I asked at the beginning of my remarks, can she give a very clear indication of the remainder of this parliamentary year?

Mrs. Beckett: First, I note that the hon. Gentleman says that he is not asking for a February week, and indeed indicated that he would be happy not to have one. That is certainly consistent with the fact that Conservative Members voted against having such a week, although not entirely consistent with all the private remarks that are made to me—but there we go. I entirely take his point, however, that the benefit of such a non-sitting week lies in the House having as early an indication of it as possible. He will recall that last year we were not able to provide a full week because of the pressure of business. I am not able to give him an indication as to what, if anything, the Government feel able to offer, but certainly hope to do so by next week. I apologise that I am not able to do so today; I would have wished to, but we are not in a position to do so yet.
The hon. Gentleman asked which parts of the Bill on funding will be taken on the Floor of the House. That is a matter for continuing discussion through the usual channels and I hope that we shall be able to reach broad agreement on it. He also asked about the date of publication and the handling of the Wakeham report—the royal commission report on Lords reform—and for a statement, an early debate and an indication of Joint Committee intentions. My understanding and expectation is that the report is likely to be published next week—probably next Thursday, I believe—and obviously the Government will have to weigh it when it emerges. I take on board his request for early observations on it. We shall have that under consideration and it can be discussed through the usual channels. I am not sure how early it will be possible to give an indication about handling in terms


of a Joint Committee, whether a Minister will sit on it and so on, but I shall bear his request in mind and convey it to colleagues.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the defence debate. He will know that the Defence Committee is urgently discussing the White Paper and we intend to have the debate as soon as possible. We have made it plain that we regret the delay. I was a little surprised that he said that it was extraordinary that yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was made without debate because there is nothing at all unusual about statements of Government intent being made before debate. The hon. Gentleman will know that it was well within the public domain that, following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Government had indicated that they would have to take account of the decision, as every previous Government have done, and would reflect on it and make a statement in the House when a decision was made.
It seems to me that there was nothing in any way out of the ordinary about my right hon. Friend's statement, nor do I believe that there is anything extraordinary or inconsistent in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's handling of a number of extremely difficult cases in which matters of extradition or prosecution have come into question. In all those cases, he has, first, borne in mind his own very grave responsibilities—which of course do not include prosecuting or deciding to prosecute people, as he has made plain throughout—and always reflected the law and the way that those matters are handled through our courts. He has observed and applied that principle with consistency to all those different cases, in which decisions as to whether to prosecute and what the weight of evidence justifies are always matters for bodies other than the Home Secretary, and quite correctly so.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to keep the House informed about the progress of the influenza epidemic and I shall certainly draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. As to whether we handle that as well as we have the millennium bug—I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks—I simply say to him that, even though it could justifiably have been argued that the Government had some responsibility in respect of the millennium bug, nobody can charge us with being responsible for the flu bug, although I have no doubt whatever that many Conservative Members will try.
I am not yet in a position to announce the date of the Budget statement, but I recognise that the announcement ought to be made fairly soon, and I will draw the matter to the attention of colleagues.
Finally, let me echo what the hon. Gentleman said, and wish him and the whole House a happy new year.

Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside all the Pinochet defenders and apologists on the Tory Benches, may I ask my right hon. Friend to request the Home Secretary to give further consideration to putting the medical reports on Pinochet in the public domain, or at least allowing the Spanish judicial authorities to see the medical evidence about which the Home Secretary told us yesterday? I claim to speak for no one else, but I for one would be very sorry to see Pinochet returned to Chile without the conclusion of the necessary legal processes,

rather than that monstrous tyrant—as I described him earlier in the week—being sent to Spain, where he should be tried for his crimes against humanity.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has strong views on this, which he has expressed clearly and consistently throughout. As he will recall, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was asked yesterday about the release of medical evidence, and also about its possible release to the Spanish Government. My right hon. Friend dealt in part with those questions, and made it plain that it is not Government practice to release confidential medical evidence.
I remind my hon. Friend that Home Office questions will take place on Monday. He may have an opportunity to explore the position further then.

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I thank the Leader of the House for listening to what was said to her about the Representation of the People Bill, and allowing time for proper consideration before the Report stage on Wednesday.
Will the right hon. Lady find time in the next couple of weeks for a debate on the benefit uprating statement that we feel is due to the House? Will she recognise that, although taking the Government's proposals to restrict access to jury trials to the House of Lords is an entirely proper move, it also legitimises anything that the House of Lords may do to the legislation—especially given that the proposals were not in the Labour party manifesto and, indeed, are contrary to what was in it?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. A valid point was made to us, and the Government always try to respond to genuine points relating to what is reasonable in the handling of business, from whatever quarter of the House those points may come. I will draw his observations about benefit uprating to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but I cannot give him a date for a debate at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman was right to suggest that views on the question of jury trials have evolved and, indeed, changed over time; but he will doubtless recall both that the move was recommended by a royal commission, and that it is supported by the Lord Chief Justice. As for his claim that the fact that legislation was initiated in the House of Lords legitimises anything that the Lords may choose to do, let me tell him that it is never wise to generalise, and, in particular, that it is never wise to encourage constitutional precedent on the basis of something that one happens to support on a certain occasion—I am thinking of the hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill—because it is likely to come back and bite one on another occasion.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some rumblings, at least among Labour Members, about the possibility that the minimum wage may not be index-linked? Will she give an opportunity for those rumblings to become rather louder over the coming weeks?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that people are concerned that the minimum wage should be properly handled.


No decision has been taken on the uprating of the national minimum wage, whatever my hon. Friend may have read in the press, but the minimum wage was always handled through negotiation, rather than through a formulaic approach, whether with regard to inflation or anything else. Decisions will be made following Ministers' consideration of a Low Pay Commission report.
Although it has been extraordinarily valuable and defeated the nonsense that was talked by the Conservative party about its impact, the minimum wage has been going only for some nine months. Although I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the matter, I draw to his attention the fact that tabling takes place today, I believe, for the next Department of Trade and Industry Question Time.

Mr. Michael Jack: Earlier this week, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), drew the House's attention to the fact that the announcement about the Home Secretary's intentions on General Pinochet were made to the media, not to the House. What efforts will the Leader of the House make in the remainder of the Parliament to ensure that Ministers make important public announcements first to the House, and not to the media?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was able to be present yesterday. Indeed, sometimes the Chamber is a little noisy, so it is not always easy to follow, but, had he been here, he would know that the Home Secretary made it plain that the Home Office did not make a statement to the media. What happened was that the Home Secretary's preliminary views were leaked to the media and the Home Office was then requested to confirm or deny them. He made it plain that he had intended to make an announcement first, in the proper way, through a written answer to the House. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Secretary is one of the most punctilious Ministers with regard to such matters.

Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will remember that, in December 1998, we faced the depressing reality of not being ready for this century—at least that was the view of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who never lets a fact get in the way of a soundbite. Just before the recess, my right hon. Friend gave a commitment to give a statement on progress on the millennium bug. Will she do that? It is important that we have the opportunity to put on record our thanks to public servants throughout the country, in central and local government, who led Britain's exercise and led the world in many respects.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right about the observations of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who, when he was responsible for these matters—fortunately, it was not for long—made every effort to claim that, if anything went wrong, it would all be the Government's fault. However, I have heard him say nothing about how the Government deserve praise for things not going wrong in the aftermath of the changeover.
My hon. Friend is right. It is important that the House puts on record the enormous amount of work that was undertaken by many dedicated public servants, who, in the context of the millennium bug and of the millennium celebrations as a whole, gave up their free time to celebrate the holidays, so that the rest of us could do so in peace. I assure him that the Government intend to honour their commitment.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill were both casualties under private Member's Bill procedure last year, but both clearly existed as Bills in the previous Session and are now in the Government programme. Why does the Leader of the House believe that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill is more urgent than the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: Such Bills are always a matter of fine calculation. The Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, were it to come before the House instead of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, would nevertheless probably not pass into law in sufficient time for it to make a difference as early as the right hon. Gentleman, understandably and legitimately, would wish. Therefore, there is no argument that one Bill is more urgent than the other. He will know that many Members and, indeed, members of the public, not least those in the fur farming industry, are anxious for the matter to be resolved. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill is the only chance for businesses that are already in substantial difficulty to get compensation. They regret the action, not of the right hon. Gentleman, but of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, in delaying that Bill last time.

Mr. John Cummings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 150,000 ex-miners have lodged claims for chronic bronchitis, emphysema and vibration white finger, but that, under current procedures, it will take more than three years to settle those claims? Although we recognise the interest and efforts of the Minister with responsibility for those matters in making progress, several thousand ex-miners have died before their claims were considered, and several thousand more are expected to die in the next three years. Will she therefore agree to an urgent debate on that very important matter, and on other matters related to compensation for ex-miners?

Mrs. Beckett: I am, indeed, aware of the scale of the difficulties being experienced, and I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members—particularly those in the miners group—have pursued the matter assiduously. I agree with him—as does my right hon. Friend who speaks for the Government on those issues—that the position is unsatisfactory. I hope that my hon. Friend will be aware that a working party has been established to determine what can be done to speed up settlement of those claims. Ministers have repeatedly striven to do everything that can be done to speed up the handling of cases and the settlement of matters, and we shall continue to pursue the issue.
I cannot promise my hon. Friend an urgent debate in Government time on the matter—it is open to him, of course, to apply for an Adjournment debate—but assure him that the Government have the matter under review and will continue to press forward on it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware—as are some hon. Members—that, while we have been keeping an eye on East Timor, there have been other events in Indonesia. Is it possible for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to make a statement in the House next week on the representations that have been made on what seems to be another form of ethnic cleansing—in which, on the latest figures, up to 5,000 people have died?
Is it necessary to consider the Disqualifications Bill in Committee the day after Second Reading—bearing in mind that, when the House rushes business through, we often make mistakes?

Mrs. Beckett: On East Timor, I am aware of the other difficulties that have arisen in that part of the world. Although it is unlikely that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be able to make a statement on the matter, I remind the hon. Gentleman that Foreign Office Question Time will be held next Tuesday, 18 January, when there will be an opportunity for the matter to be aired, albeit not in a statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked, quite legitimately, about the handling of the Disqualifications Bill. Although I am, of course, conscious of the fact that the House has always to balance the need to dispose expeditiously of important business with the need to get those matters right, the fact is that—as he will be aware; however contentious the issue may be—we are pursuing a relatively simple principle that is reflected in many other facets of our legislation and in the opportunities that arise for people to sit in this place and/or other places. Consequently, we shall be pursuing not a new or technically difficult matter, but the extension of an existing principle to the circumstances of Northern Ireland and Ireland itself.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on crime? As she will know, although recorded crime in the past two years has fallen by 9 per cent., many of our communities—including my own of Gedling, in Nottingham—are still blighted by antisocial behaviour. We have to determine how, together, we might best tackle such behaviour, which causes problems for so many people as they try to pursue their daily lives.

Mrs. Beckett: I am, indeed, aware of the continuing concern among the public, which is shared on both sides of the House, about crime levels. I am also aware of how much people's feelings of personal and family security are threatened by antisocial behaviour: almost as much as by crime itself. I know, too, that my hon. Friend has been complaining long and loud on the issue. He will know that the Government have taken action both to encourage and to invest in crime prevention, and to encourage local authorities and police authorities to recognise the possibilities of the tools that we have given them to deal with antisocial behaviour. We hope that they will continue to do so.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Some £4 million of taxpayers' money is being spent on special

advisers, spin doctors and general hangers-on around the Government. Amazingly, another £500,000 is being spent on flying them on jollies round the world. That sticks in the throat of the hill farmers above Oswestry, who are struggling to make a living. May we please have a full debate to explain what on earth is going on?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. The total spent from public funds on the provision of policy advice is £7 million—half to the Government and half to the Opposition. That is three times as much as the previous Government offered to us, but it does not seem to have done them much good so far.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the problems of the homeless so that we can congratulate the homelessness Tsarina on the refreshing views that she has expressed, pointing out that the problems of persistent rough sleepers relate rarely and only briefly to a lack of housing and stem mainly from mental ill health and addiction to alcohol and other drugs? Such a debate would also enable us to draw attention to what is happening in the rest of Europe, particularly Switzerland and Holland, where measures have been taken to reduce greatly the number of people sleeping rough, dealing at the same time with their problems of addiction to drugs. When those who engage in such worthwhile and progressive enterprises elsewhere in Europe are regarded as trailblazers, why are people who, advertently or inadvertently, follow similar policies in this country treated as criminals?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. Whatever views were expressed by the person who is dealing with the issue of homelessness—"Tsarina" is a new one on me—and however those views may or may not have been misrepresented, I hope that my hon. Friend is well aware of the investment that the Government are making in a range of measures. We hope that those measures will prevent people from drifting into homelessness—they include provisions to deal with those coming out of care or the armed forces, who are the most likely to do so—and tackle the complex range of problems that homeless people have, including, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, mental ill health. There will be an emergency special needs response team; new contact and assessment teams; 60 new specialist workers specifically to help those with alcohol, drug or mental health problems; more than 4,000 more beds brought into use; more than 850 new hostel beds with additional specialist help; as well as 1,000 new housing association homes. I recognise my hon. Friend's applause for what is being done in other countries such as Italy or Sweden, but I hope that he recognises that the Government have put in place policies that should tackle the problem instead of simply deploring it.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is it not now urgent that we have a debate on the doctrine of collective responsibility in government, specifically whether the Foreign Secretary represents the Government's view on the euro? Is it not rather disturbing that a senior member of the Government has apparently expressed a view on the euro which we think may not be reflected by other members of the Government? Surely that requires a debate. Surely it is


necessary for senior members of the Government to come to that debate and let us know whether the Government have a view on the euro, what it is and whether it is the Foreign Secretary's view or someone else's.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's example does not justify his claim that there is a need for a debate. The Government's policy on the euro is unchanged. It is as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his interview on Sunday: if the economic tests are met, the British people must decide and have a final veto through a referendum. That is unlikely to happen this side of an election and can happen only when the economic tests are judged to be met. The right hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically falling foul of the belief that what is said in the media is in some way pertinent on that issue. Few things seem to bore the media more than consistency. Ever since we announced our policy on the euro soon after coming to office, the media have tried to see whether it has changed and whether everybody is saying the same thing. If they cannot discover evidence of dissent or difference, they continue to allege that they have found such evidence. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with those tactics and I am sorry that he has in some way fallen for them.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: In light of the interesting and controversial recommendations of the Neill committee on an appeal procedure—controversial in the sense that they will give the lawyers a real foothold for the first time in proceedings in the House of Commons—can we have an early, full day's debate on those recommendations, as many right hon. and hon. Members will have a lot to say about them?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point. At the moment, I cannot undertake to find the time that he identifies as being necessary, but obviously I have taken on board his remarks. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will, indeed, take a keen interest in these matters, not least in whether and to what degree we should involve the legal profession in our affairs.

Mr. John Townend: The right hon. Lady will be aware of the importance of the fishing industry in the constituencies of at leat 50 right hon. and hon. Members. Was it not unfortunate, therefore, that the annual fishing debate was so short that only one Back-Bench Member of the official Opposition and no representative of one of the minor parties was called? In view of the crisis in the fishing industry, may we have another debate? In any case, will the right hon. Lady ensure that next year's annual fishing debate, when we discuss the quotas, is a full day's debate so that all Back-Bench Members with large fishing interests have a chance to contribute?

Mrs. Beckett: Certainly, I am very conscious of the importance of the fisheries interests. It is an important industry for the country as a whole, not just to hon. Members who represent constituencies that have fishing

interests. I cannot find time for another debate in the near future, but I shall certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind.

Shona McIsaac: In light of the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on poverty, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate to examine what the Government have been doing to eradicate poverty and put right 18 years of Tory misrule and the fact that the Tory Government hid from the British people the fact that they knew that they were plunging families into greater poverty?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that, whether through the private remarks of Saatchi and Saatchi or the OECD study, it is now clear that, despite the fact that it was consistently denied by Conservative Members during their years in government, they presided over a catastrophic widening of the gap between rich and poor. One of the most challenging and radical goals that the Government have set themselves is to work towards the elimination of child poverty in particular over the next 20 years. I have no doubt that it is right to do so and that we have already made substantial strides in that direction.

Mr. Roger Gale: The early-day motion is an overrated parliamentary device, with some honourable exceptions used mainly by Back Benchers to gain column inches in local papers. Therefore, the right hon. Lady may not have seen early-day motion 147.
[That this House notes with concern that the incompetence of Kent County Council's Conservative administration has led to a serious shortfall in social services funding that threatens winter provision in the county and which will create difficulties for local health authorities by causing bed blocking in hospitals; notes that the Conservatives have attempted to blame these problems on the cost of supporting asylum seekers even though this Government, unlike its predecessor, reimburses the County for at least 90 per cent. of these costs; notes that the real problem is that Kent's Conservative Council has failed, for political reasons, to plan for factors that were known well in advance such as the impact of the national minimum wage, has diverted over £5 million into largely unnecessary corporate initiatives, has based its finances on unsustainable and unworkable budgets which failed to make efficient use of the most generous Government settlement in the county's history and which inevitably have lead to a substantial overspend; notes that the Conservatives who control the council intend to resolve the problems they have created by diverting funds ring-fenced for voluntary organisations, reneging on promised regeneration funding for East Kent and cutting services for the elderly and vulnerable; and calls on the county council's Conservative leadership to work with the Government and with other political parties in Kent to devise a new budget and business plan for Kent that truly meets the needs of the county's population.]
It was tabled by six Kent Labour Members criticising Kent social services department for a budget shortfall. Exceptionally, will the right hon. Lady find time for this particular early-day motion to be debated so that the House can learn how the budget shortfall is not £170,000, as some Labour Members seem to have suggested,


unfunded by central Government, but £4.5 million—virtually the entire shortfall—unfunded by Government and spent on economic migrants? Will she give those Members the opportunity to come to the House to apologise to their constituents for short-changing them and to join Kent's Conservatives in seeking to press the Government for the repayment of that money in full?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time to debate that or any other early-day motion. The Government understand the pressures on authorities such as Kent. Indeed, that is one reason for some of the changes that we have made in the handling of asylum seekers, for example, changes which at the last minute were opportunistically opposed by Conservative Front-Bench Members—although the hon. Gentleman may have voted in opposition. With regard to local government funding generally, those issues must be seen against the background of the most generous settlement since the council tax was invented.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) in asking for a debate on vibration white finger?
In view of three factors: the re-entry of the International Atomic Energy Authority into Baghdad; the visit of the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kharrazi, who suggested that, in spite of the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian Government favoured the lifting of sanctions against Iraq; and the Turkish dam that, if it goes ahead, could cause a water war in the middle east—may we have a statement on the forgotten actions of sanctions and war against Iraq?

Mrs. Beckett: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings), the Government are mindful of concerns about vibration white finger cases. As I understand it, payments on those cases are going comparatively well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raises primarily the issue of sanctions on Iraq and their effects. As I have already said to others, I cannot find time for a special debate or focus on that issue in the near future. However, Foreign Office questions will be held next week, and I am sure that my hon. Friend has not overlooked that point. As for saying that there are forgotten effects of the sanctions, he does himself less than justice because he has almost singlehandedly ensured that we do not forget the issue.

Mr. Graham Brady: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the location of the national athletics stadium? Following the fiasco of the proposed location at Wembley, is she aware that recent reports suggest that the Commonwealth stadium in Manchester could be altered, at relatively low cost, to make it a suitable venue for the national stadium? Is she also aware that Councillor Richard Leese, the Labour leader of Manchester city council, has talked of the Government's continuing "obsession" with staging major events in London? Is it not time that the Government woke up to the fact that there is a country outside London and started to stage some events in the rest of the country?

Mrs. Beckett: The handling of the national stadium at Wembley and the athletics stadium continues to be under

urgent review. It has now become clear that it was not possible to provide a stadium that could stage both athletics and football events satisfactorily. We now have plans for what will be an excellent stadium for football and we are seeking to tackle urgently the issue of a stadium for athletics. Manchester will, of course, host the Commonwealth games. I have great respect for Councillor Leese and I understand his sentiments about the Government's obsession with staging events in London, but leaders of Manchester city council—most of them Labour, thanks to the common sense of the people of Manchester down the generations—have always felt that Manchester, not London, should be the capital of Britain.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I ask for an early statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the tragic drowning of seven members of the crew of the Scottish fishing vessel, the Solway Harvester, and the question of her retrieval from what are quite shallow waters? At moments such as this, people in fishing communities are reminded of the words of a character in Scott's "The Antiquary":
It's no fish ye're buying, it's men's lives.
A statement might enable some of us to argue the case, as we have done for many years, that no fishing vessel should put to sea without the provision of a survival suit for every member of the crew. The provision of survival suits might have had no bearing on this tragic loss, but such safety measures should be given serious consideration by the Government. It is some years now since we had a debate on the safety of fishermen.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of the tragic deaths that have recently been reported because it gives me the opportunity to express, on behalf of the entire House, our sympathy for the families and victims. He is right to make the point about the importance to those communities and families of the trade in fish which those of us who are not engaged in such pursuits so often take lightly.
I cannot promise my hon. Friend time for an early statement or debate on the matter, but I shall certainly undertake to draw his remarks and concerns to the attention of the relevant Ministers, who I know take the matter as seriously as he does.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The House is rightly jealous of its exclusive rights to decide taxation matters, so can we have a debate—or a statement from the Prime Minister—on the Government's stance with respect to the withholding tax? Reports have emerged that the Treasury is coming under severe pressure from the Foreign Office to back down on the issue before the conclusion of the Portuguese presidency.

Mrs. Beckett: I fear, Madam Speaker, that you must be as bored as I am with the withholding tax, about which there have been innumerable statements over the months and years, all arising from stories in the press that the Government were planning to give way on the matter at any minute. I assure the House that the Government do not plan to give way on the matter. We have made our stance on the matter quite plain, and we shall maintain that stance.

Mr. Llew Smith: I should like to declare a non-financial interest in the question that I am


about to ask. As the House will be aware, I have raised, in questions and in an Adjournment debate, the matter of the drama strategy of the Arts Council of Wales. Gwent theatre in education, probably the finest example of its type in the United Kingdom, has been denied the opportunity to continue the work that it has done over the past 20 years.
I have been concerned to find out how communities and drama companies can appeal against such decisions. An appeals procedure used to be available, but within the past 48 hours Joanna Weston, chief executive of the Arts Council of Wales, has informed the Gwent company that even those who win such an appeal will still lose their franchises, as they will have been passed on to other companies. That is an insult to the company and, more importantly, to the local communities who have benefited from the theatre in education scheme.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the process in the Arts Council of Wales for making decisions and setting priorities?

Mrs. Beckett: I know of the my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I understand the concern that he has expressed for the interests of his local community in that connection. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future. However, in view of what my hon. Friend said about the implications for an appeals process of the remarks that he quoted, I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

Mr. John Hayes: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the fiasco surrounding the millennium dome? I refer not simply to the incompetent management that caused queues and disappointment on millennium eve, but to the growing evidence of incompetence at every stage of the dome's design and construction.
That incompetence was highlighted today by the dome's former design chief, Stephen Bayley. He laid the blame at the door of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Mr. Bayley described the right hon. Gentleman as "interfering, crass, incompetent" and a "paradigm of bad management". Conservative Members may have thought that all along, but it is important that we have a debate to establish why the greatest opportunity of our age has been so sadly wasted.

Mrs. Beckett: Despite the best efforts of the Opposition and of the newspapers that consistently try to advance their cause, the dome has been a success. Of course, some people will have been disappointed, but the vast majority of visitors to the exhibition have enjoyed themselves very much. Indeed, many families have said that they want to return.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to some remarks made by Stephen Bayley. I am not acquainted with Mr. Bayley, but I am aware that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland failed to see eye to eye. Mr. Bayley has made such remarks ever since, and no doubt will continue to do so.

Mr. John Cryer: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the rights of the child? She may have seen early-day motion 176 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).
[That this House supports the establishment of a children's rights commissioner for England with linked officers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and recognises that the duties and powers of such an officer would be to promote children's rights and interests and ensure that they are taken into account by ministers, local authorities, private and voluntary bodies, to promote compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to ensure that children have effective ways of raising concerns and are able to participate in decision-making that affects their lives.]
The early-day motion makes a specific plea for the creation of a commissioner for the rights of the child. That matter would be an important debate, and would receive a lot of attention outside the House as it is becoming increasingly urgent.
Secondly, if my right hon. Friend felt tempted at any time to have a debate on the Pinochet story as it proceeds, she should give in to that temptation. When people outside this place hear the craven and repellent apologies on behalf of butchery and murder that will undoubtedly come from the Conservative party, the Conservatives' popularity in the country will slump even lower.

Mrs. Beckett: I am, indeed, aware of the early-day motion on the creation of a children's rights commissioner. We have set up a task force on safeguards for children, and intend to establish a children's rights director as a senior post within the National Care Standards Commission. The specific issue of a children's rights commissioner continues to be raised and will no doubt continue to be discussed. These are important steps, which I know my hon. Friend will welcome.
With regard to my hon. Friend's remarks about the opportunities presented by a debate on the handling of the issue of Senator Pinochet, I share his view that, if the public were made more aware of the degree and kind of interest that has been expressed by some on the Conservative Benches, it would do nothing to enhance the Opposition's standing. However, I fear that time in this House is under considerable pressure and I must reluctantly decline to do anything further to diminish the popularity of the Opposition. They probably need no help from me to do that, anyway.

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

3RD ALLOTTED DAY

Considered in Committee [Progress, 12 January].

[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Clause 9

RESTRICTION ON SUPPLY OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN REGISTER

Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 10, leave out lines 22 to 35.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 21, in page 10, line 32, after "which", insert
both the full register and".

No. 38, in page 10, line 36, leave out "full".
No. 39, in page 10, line 41, leave out "full".
No. 91, in page 10, line 42, at end insert—

(ab) to supply to any persons registered under the 1998 Data Protection Act copies of the full register and other documents, or prescribed parts of them, on payment of a prescribed fee and for exempt purposes only".

No. 40, in page 10, leave out lines 43 and 44.
No. 41, in page 11, line 7, leave out "full".
No. 42, in page 11, line 10, leave out "full".
No. 77, in page 11, line 14, after "any", insert "personal".
No. 78, in page 11, line 15, leave out "information" and insert "names and addresses".
No. 79, in page 11, line 17, at end insert—

(1A) Such provisions made whether in accordance with regulations made in pursuance of paragraph 10B above or in accordance with any other provision made by or under an Act shall only be made after the Secretary of State has declared that they are in the public interest and after an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.".

No. 43, in page 11, line 18, leave out "full".
No. 23, in page 11, line 25, at end add—

(10C).—

(1) In making provisions under paragraph 10B, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of those provisions on electors, and in particular to whether the interests of electors who request that their names and addresses are excluded from the edited register, and of other electors, would be prejudiced in any way, in particular by any provisions not enabling the supply of copies of the full register to any person, or to any class of person, to whom copies of the full register were previously supplied.
(2) In making provisions under paragraph 10B which do not enable the supply of copies of the full register to any person, or to any class of person, to whom such copies were previously supplied, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the effect of those provisions on such persons or classes of persons, and in particular to whether the interests of those persons or classes of persons would be prejudiced in any way.

(3) The Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as he thinks fit on the effect of any provisions which he proposes to make under paragraph 10B and shall have regard to any representations which may be made to him by such persons or any other interested parties.
(4) No provisions shall be made under paragraph 10B which adversely affect the interests of electors.
(5) In this paragraph "interest"' shall include, but not exclusively—

(a) in respect of electors, access to financial services, and in particular to loans, credit accounts and bank accounts, and the amount of direct mail that is likely to be received by electors;
(b) in respect of persons or classes of persons to whom copies of the full register were previously supplied, the employment of workers by such persons, the costs incurred by such persons, and the level of competition between such persons.".


New clause 5—Supply of information: report to Parliament—
.—The Secretary of State shall compile and lay before Parliament annually a report on the workings of section 9 of this Act.".

Mr. Barnes: In addition to speaking to my amendments, I shall also speak in support of amendment No. 77, in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), to which I have added my name.
My amendments would end the commercial sale of electoral registers. Electoral registers exist for electoral purposes. Nothing should interfere with their being able to fulfil their fundamental purpose. That is why the poll tax was wrong in using the interface between the poll tax and electoral registers. It probably deterred 1 million people from registering for the vote, especially young attainers who would have appeared on registers for the first time.
A number of people are deterred from registering by the thought that their names and addresses will be used for commercial purposes. Similarly, some people prefer their telephone numbers to be ex-directory, partly because they are unhappy about their names and addresses appearing in a public document.
The Government are seeking to accommodate the problem with a two-tier register which allows people to opt out of the edition that will be for sale for commercial purposes. The Conservative response is that those who opt out will be at a disadvantage, as commercial interests will not be able to confirm people's home addresses. If we ban the sale of registers for commercial purposes, credit agencies and others will have to find different ways to check people's addresses. That might inconvenience those commercial interests, but it will not inconvenience the electorate; nor will it deter people from registering.
I realise that charities could be placed in a difficult position unless amendment No. 77 is accepted. Charities, such as the Stroke Association, Marie Curie Cancer Care and the National Asthma Campaign, use information from electoral registers to run street collections for money or jumble. There are 50 such national charities, plus some local hospices, which collect more than £180 million a year in that way. They need street names and house numbers, but they do not need the names of individuals. For example, they need to know that in Acacia avenue,


the odd numbers run from one to 37, and the even numbers from two to 36—that is how they base their operations.
Amendment No. 77 provides for the needs of such charities; in no way does it inhibit electoral registration, unlike the sale of registers, which may tend to deter people from placing their names on the register. There is no reason why the required information cannot be passed to charities without cost. Amendment No. 77 would work either with my amendments or with only the Government's proposals, because what is needed is the full list of addresses—not the names of individuals. I recommend upholding the sanctity of the names and addresses on electoral registers, but passing street numbers on to charities.
My amendments stress that electoral registers are established for the fundamental democratic right to vote in elections. Only if that purpose is protected should anyone outside the electoral system be allowed to have ownership or general use of the registers. The commercial use of registers deters some people from registering.

Mr. Brian White: My hon. Friend referred to the loss of names from the register after the introduction of the poll tax; he is absolutely right. However, commercial companies were using the electoral roll before the poll tax and there did not appear to be many problems. Does he agree that such use of the register was valid at that time?

Mr. Barnes: It is invalid to use the register for commercial sale at any time. I know of no research as to the number of people who refuse to register because of such commercial use; all I know is that each Member of the House will have been in touch with constituents who are not on the electoral register, and who say that the reason is because they do not want the register to be used for commercial purposes. They do not want to be inundated with material from outside organisations. When constituents tell us that they want those organisations to stop bombarding them with literature, they point out that one of the means used to target them is the electoral register.
That is an important consideration, even if it affects only a small number of constituents. The Bill is to ensure the maximum possible registration. We have introduced a rolling register in order to help with that, so we should examine carefully each deterrent to registration and try to remove it. The Government have tackled the problem by proposing two registers, one of which will be edited, with an opt-out provision. Some might argue that there should be an opt-in provision instead—that would considerably reduce the number of names in the edited register.
However, the Opposition will presumably argue strongly that the sale of registers is needed for commercial purposes, and that some constituents will be disadvantaged if their names are not included on those registers. My answer is that if we say that the commercial interests cannot have the register at all, nobody will be disadvantaged—although it could be argued that the full list will be disadvantaged—and the commercial organisations will have to discover other means by which they can contact people legitimately.
This is a very important measure. I hope that the Government, who are part of the way towards accepting the argument, will go a stage further.

Mr. John Greenway: Out of courtesy, may I remind the Committee of my interest with the Institute of Sales Promotion and the incentive industry? The ISP has no interest in the Bill or this issue, but I would not want hon. Members to think that I am being uncharitable when I speak shortly about the Direct Marketing Association. The incentive industry fully understands the direct marketing industry, which is another part of the marketing world. That has helped me to appreciate the concerns expressed by a number of organisations about clause 9.
I wish to refer to amendments Nos. 37 to 43, which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has just mentioned. To be accurate, the amendments would need to include the deletion of line 21, as well as lines 22 to 35, but our reading of the matter is that, effectively, amendment No. 37 sends a signal to the Government to delete the concept of the opt-out box altogether. For that reason, we must tell the Minister that that is one of the clear options available to the Committee.
I appreciate entirely that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire has a rather different purpose—to delete the commercial sale of the register. If, having listened to the arguments, we concluded that we would seek to support the amendment, it would be to indicate support for one option, which would be to delete the opt-out box altogether.
It is clear that this idea has not been thought through properly, and there has not been a proper regulatory impact assessment. That may explain why the CBI has estimated a minimum cost of £500 million to commercial organisations if the clause is implemented as drafted. That is why, in addition, many charities throughout the country—some of which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire mentioned—have expressed serious reservations about restricting the use of the commercially available full register.
I stress that I am referring to the full register, as I understand that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, may suggest that his party's thinking is that only a full register should be available and that there should not be an edited version at all. That is another point of view.
We are concerned that industry has not had a proper chance for consultation. In reality, its views were canvassed only after it was clear that the working party had made a recommendation that there should be an opt-out box for consumer protection purposes, and that the Government were determined to go ahead. And many charities will find it impossible to hold house-to-house collections or to send direct mail to the many people who are likely to subscribe to them.
1.30 pm
Equally, the direct marketing industry will not be able to use the register to edit the data that it has obtained from other sources—that process controls the amount of unsolicited mail that consumers receive—but will send more unsolicited mail under a scatter-gun approach until it recognises that that is not a profitable way forward. It will then cease to use direct mail at all. That will have a


serious impact on postal services. I note from business questions that, early next week, the House will be given the opportunity to debate the future of rural post offices. In its concern for the future of the Post Office and rural post offices, it must pay regard to the effect that this clause will have on them.
Industry and the Conservative party recognise that an issue must be addressed. Whatever we do in support of the amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire to send out a signal, and whatever we do with our own amendment, we recognise that there is a problem. Industry has proposed an alternative scheme with which the Minister is familiar because representatives of the Direct Marketing Association, the CBI and the Advertising Association have described it to him. It suggests that there should be no opt-out box, but that a leaflet should be prepared at industry's expense to explain all the uses to which the register might be put. That might include direct mail, financial services and its use by credit reference agencies, which is a major factor that the Government have considered.
We welcome the intimation in the letters that the Minister has sent out in the past couple of days—I presume that he will refer to them later—that the Government are persuaded that there is a legitimate credit referencing use that they would wish to continue. They have already agreed that the money laundering use could also continue. All those points could be explained in a leaflet, and the widespread and legitimate use of the register by charities and Government Departments could also continue.
The leaflet would also point out that the raw material in the electoral list would not be used as the sole basis for sending direct mail or making any contact with an individual, but would be used purely to enable those with existing mailing lists to validate the names on the lists. In other words, they would clean their lists to save unnecessary costs and to prevent individuals from receiving unsolicited mail—and those who have moved into a new house from being bombarded with unsolicited mail to former occupants. The industry recognises that that is a nuisance.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Has my hon. Friend, like me, received the letter from Help the Aged, which came up with a relatively simple solution? It suggested that the word "information" should be changed to "names and addresses".

Mr. Greenway: I have received many letters from charities, including from Help the Aged. We are not entirely clear that its suggestion meets the requirements, and I shall explain in a moment that we have another scheme that would allow the opt-out box to continue. At the moment, I am simply exploring what would occur if the opt-out box were stopped altogether, which would be one of the amendment's consequences.
Under the industry's alternative scheme the leaflet would be paid for by industry and distributed by local authorities at a cost to be borne by industry. The scheme would include a freepost system for individuals who wanted an element of privacy or restriction on the use of the electoral register, particularly to prevent its use as raw data, which would involve the register being used as the sole source of information that an organisation would act upon.
Turning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the scheme would enable charities to verify how many people live in a particular street so that they could plan their house-to-house collections accordingly. It would enable charities that write to individuals, as direct marketing and direct mail organisations do, to use the list to clean their data and to save unnecessary cost and expense. It cannot be sensible for charities to have to spend money on postage and printing to write to people who are no longer at an address. The use of the electoral register is very valuable to such charities.
I can tell that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department acknowledges that the scheme has considerable merit, and we hope that his mind is still receptive to it.
I turn now to another perspective on the matter. The Conservative party recognises that the Government are unlikely to be persuaded of the working party's recommendation that there should not be an opt-out box, which we understand has the support of the Data Protection Registrar, and that they fully intend to proceed with an opt-out box. With that in mind, and despite all that I have said about what might have been a preferred option, we have tried hard to produce amendments that would allow the Government to continue with an opt-out box and avoid damaging the interests of voters and those of industry, financial organisations and charities.
On the interests of constituents, there is no question but that restricted availability of the list would be damaging for credit reference purposes. It appears that the Government acknowledge that, but they seem unpersuaded that there is a legitimate use for the register in debt recovery. That seems to us an illogical distinction. It will have the same consequence for credit availability because if organisations such as banks are not able to use the electoral register to trace the whereabouts of people to whom credit has been extended, they will be reluctant to extend credit to those people in the first place. If the efficiency of debt recovery is impeded, that will have a clear consequence not only for credit availability but, in the long run, for the cost of credit.
On debt recovery, I should like the Minister to consider what happens to people who have not, for example, paid the television licence fee or vehicle excise duty. Presumably the BBC and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency currently chase up people who have not paid by checking on the electoral register. Whether or not the effect is intended, some organisations are considered to have a legitimate use because they may in some respects be seen as part of the public sector, whereas commercial organisations and banks would have that legitimate use restricted.
We do not have as yet any form of identity card system. As a result, over many years the electoral register has become the chief source of information as to where people may or may not be found. We are entirely at one with those who say that it should not be used against the interests or preferences of individuals. However, we urge the Minister to consider the matter completely in the round and to recognise that there is not a one-way street. All of us benefit in some way from the fact that organisations have access to the register and use it properly. We accept that its commercial use needs to be supervised, licensed and controlled in a more sensible way.
Amendment No. 21 asks the Government to recognise that there are legitimate purposes for the use of the full register, but that these should be explained properly to voters. The amendment comes with amendment No. 22, which we are likely to discuss when dealing with a subsequent group of amendments. Amendment No. 23 is of much greater importance. If accepted, it would have the effect of placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to have regard to certain interests and to consult before making any regulations under paragraph 10B. Those interests are those of electors and constituents as well as the interests of business. I have already detained the Committee long enough on what those interests are.
Amendment No. 23 is crucial. As drafted, the Bill gives far too much discretion to the Secretary of State in the making of regulations under the new provisions. If the Minister intends making soothing noises in response to the barrage of criticism that he has already received—I suspect it will be articulated further during the debate—we think that the best response would be for him to accept the amendment or to indicate that on Report, which will be on Wednesday of next week, the House will be asked to consider a further amendment. Through amendment No. 23, we are asking that a provision be put into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests of electors and businesses, and to consult before he makes any regulations under the new provisions contained in paragraph 10B.
There is an alternative. Amendments Nos. 91, 87, 88—unfortunately, No. 89 was not selected—and 90 are consequential. However, amendment No. 23 would provide for any organisation registered with the Data Protection Registrar, under licence and on payment of a proper fee, to have full access to the commercial register. Banks and large sections of the direct marketing industry have always envisaged that there would need to be a licensing system to underpin any opt-out box arrangements. I understand that discussion about licensing has taken place between those organisations and officials in the Under-Secretary of State's Department.
The Bill sets out a requirement for provisions to which I have already referred. However, we have had no sign thus far of what form the provisions will take. How will they be structured? Who will be responsible for supervising them? What fees will be charged? How will the person responsible for supervision prescribe who can or cannot have the register? How will it be possible to stop the unofficial use of the register by spurious organisations?
As matters stand, the system is open to abuse and anomaly. At one extreme, banks and major international companies in the direct marketing sector will be denied the bona fide use of the register. I have already referred to the absurd fact that the Government remain unpersuaded that there should be no use of the full register for debt recovery.
1.45 pm
At the other extreme, as at present, anyone will be able to go down to the library and copy the full register. That may be illegal, but what is to stop people doing it? In that way, a spurious organisation could make full use of the register without anyone knowing. Doubtless such an

organisation would not be registered with the Data Protection Registrar, so presumably the organisation would be committing offences under the Data Protection Acts in any event.
That adds further to the argument that to provide a role for the Data Protection Registrar or Commissioner in supervising the use of the register only for those organisations registered with the registrar would be a sensible and practical way of progressing the issue.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Greenway: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall make another telling point.
The local Labour party, or the Liberal Democrats, or the Conservative party—I am happy to admit this—or any fringe party yet to be established could use the register, ostensibly to canvass voters, and having canvassed voters, to recruit members, sell them raffle tickets and generally raise money.
Whatever the intention may be, that is the practical effect, yet every major charity in the land, all of which have expressed anger and frustration at the Government's proposal, will be denied the same legitimate use of the register, by virtue of the opt-out box. They will be denied the legitimate use of what is and has always been regarded as a public document.
We say that the arrangements set out in clause 9 are unsatisfactory and should not be acceptable to the Committee in their current form. Reassurances from the Minister will not be sufficient. We need something more written into the Bill.
Amendment No. 91 and the supporting amendments would provide a means of ensuring that dialogue with industry and charities continues after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We entirely understand the Minister's anxiety to get the Bill on the statute book quickly, which is why we have co-operated in the progress of the Bill and why, even last night, I said that I was prepared for Report stage to take place on Monday, if necessary. We know now that it will take place on Wednesday.
We understand the sense of urgency, but we need to know that there is some guarantee that dialogue will continue. Even in the letter that the Minister kindly sent me by fax yesterday, he mentioned continuing to consult industry about the regulatory framework. That suggests to me that there should be no difficulty in his accepting that safeguards should be written into the Bill.
Accepting amendment No. 91 would leave everything in play and provide the prospect of a sensible and practical implementation of the changes in clause 9 by an independent body that was recognised by and answerable to Parliament. We believe that that is a responsible approach. We urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Richard Allan: I have sympathy for some of the arguments that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) presented, and we have joined him in tabling the amendment. However, we approach the matter from a fundamentally different angle. We do not propose that there should be a separate, edited version of the register because we do not believe that such a document would be useful. The point of the electoral register is that it is comprehensive, and carries some


authority because it has been assembled by government in a detailed manner. That is different from any other register of names and addresses. Such a comprehensive register should be available for some of the purposes that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned. There is a point in making the register widely available for credit referencing, for example.
We are worried that the proposed opt-out will be widely misunderstood by the public and that people will believe that they are opting out of junk mail. The right way of doing that is through services such as a mailing preference service. There should be a system—similar to the current telephone and fax preference services—whereby people can state that they do not wish to receive a specific sort of mailing. Preventing the circulation of the electoral register will not stop junk mail. We need a system whereby people who carry out direct marketing license themselves and are required to check the names of individuals who have chosen not to receive such material.
We understand why the working group reached its conclusions. We should take a stroll through the Data Protection Act 1998—a fascinating document, which doubtless kept us all awake as we prepared for the debate. We should examine schedule 1 and the principles of data protection. It becomes clear through reading the schedule that there is a problem with the use of the electoral register in recent years. It states:
Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
Data have been collected for one purpose and used for others, but that should not prevent us from reconsidering whether there should be a national register of names and addresses that is available for specific, tightly controlled purposes within the framework of data protection legislation.
Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act makes it clear that exceptions can be made and that the use of data can be justified when doing that is necessary to protect the vital interests of the subject of the data. There is a problem with the use of data, but the legislation suggests possible solutions.
We want to consider whether the details for the electoral register should be collected openly as data that will be used for other purposes. That gets round the problem of collecting data for one purpose and using it for another. The form that people fill in could make clear the range of purposes for which the data will be used. We should maintain a comprehensive document that carries some authority and can be used for specific, critical applications.
The credit and banking industry needs secure name and address data. It is unpleasant to write to Experian or Equifax and send them £2 when they send back a thick file that says more about one's financial standing than perhaps one would like them to know. However, when someone buys a car and wants to drive out in it immediately, the finance can be organised there and then if the data is available. In today's society, such data has to be available to enable us to be spontaneous and irresponsible consumers and rack up huge amounts of debt.
Most people, including hon. Members, would take advantage of such a system. We all need to declare an interest on credit. The credit and banking industry needs secure data. I have no fundamental problem with the data

being used in the way in which I described if controls exist and the data are not abused. There is currently a good framework for managing that. If the Government move from their current position, they should do more to regulate the data rather than trying to prevent the data from being accessible.
Direct marketing companies mainly use other information. They send surveys out to people, in which one respondent in a thousand can win a free holiday, or collect names and addresses when people go into shops. The electoral register is used for cleaning such data up. That is a public interest use because it prevents junk mail from being delivered for years after someone has left a house. Companies do not want to send such mail out and people do not want to receive it, and the electoral register is the annual census against which they can run their other information and achieve a clean list. That is in everybody's interest.
The direct marketing issue is critical and we should not allow it to distract us into saying, "We need to have this opt-out for direct marketing purposes." We should look at the positive ways of making improvements in respect of direct mail and intrusive direct mail. That involves having better rather than less data and giving people options such as preference services so that they can say what they want and do not want to receive. The working group considered that, and said that, ideally, people should be given the chance to say what sort of information they do not want to receive. It wanted a multiple choice opt-out, but accepted that that could not be achieved through the electoral register. Such an opt-out could be achieved through the other services that I mentioned. People would be better served by that rather than the blunt instrument of an opt-out from the electoral register, because they could say that they do not want this or that information sent to them.
The other element is charities. I hope that the Government will look closely at our amendments Nos. 77 and 78. The Data Protection Act is clear about not handing out personal data, but I suggest that there is no problem at all in handing out lists of address points. They can be obtained in other ways—through the post office address file, for example—but the numbers of people in households are not available. If names were not being given out, I would have no problem with allowing charities in particular and other organisations that use such data to have lists of address points and numbers of occupants, which is what they need to know. That information should not necessarily be excluded, even accepting the concerns of the Data Protection Registrar, which do not relate to such anonymous data.
We suggest possible solutions in amendments Nos. 77 and 78. The first is to include the word "personal" to make it clear that other data, such as address points, can be given out and the second is to be more explicit, using the words "names and addresses" instead of "information" in respect of the restricted categories of data. I hope that the Minister may be able to inform the Committee that such anonymous data can be given out on a comprehensive basis anyway; if not, I hope that he will seriously consider whether it was his intention and that of the working group to exclude such anonymous data, rather than personal lists of names and addresses, from being handed out.
I accept that there are individuals who, for specific purposes, do not want to have themselves or their addresses identified, but we need to revisit the whole issue


of a comprehensive list that carries authority. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, we do not have identity cards in this country. I support that, but whether we have identity cards makes a difference. Other countries operate in a different way because they use such cards. The electoral register has become a de facto system that is equivalent to identity cards in another country and we ought to consider whether that should become a de jure system and whether we need to authorise it and bring it within the data protection framework. However, we would not necessarily be in a better position and nor would the public interest necessarily be served by simply abandoning the idea of having a register against which people could check information.
Another key point is that other people will fill the gap and other sources of data will be obtained. People will fax paper electoral registers across the globe and type them up. Mistakes will inevitably be made and those sources will be inaccurate. We need to consider that because another key principle of data protection is that data should be accurate. That is in the public interest; data subjects want data to be accurate. As a public body, we should seek to obtain accuracy at all times and more problems will be caused to individuals if other sources of data become the standard. People will find, for example, that they have a bad credit rating because someone has miskeyed a name and they have been matched against an inappropriate person. The chances of that happening with the electoral register, which is generally of better quality, are less.
2 pm
The Data Protection Registrar has referred to the growth in the use of CD-ROM and internet sources of personal data checking. People are concerned about that. Some of those sources are of very poor quality, although some are reasonable. Many are outside the framework of our legislation: they are produced abroad and shipped in. I believe that the removal of the register, rather than calming things down, would encourage the use of sources of that kind. It occurs to me that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire may achieve his objective if the words that he wishes to remove are allowed to remain: it is possible that so many people will choose to opt out of the register that it will no longer have a useful purpose.

Mr. Barnes: Can it be said that the register has any use commercially at present? It is notoriously inefficient and inaccurate for such purposes, and commercial bodies attempting to use it presumably find themselves in a hopeless position. The Bill may improve things, but my amendments would improve them further.

Mr. Allan: The electoral register, unlike other sources, is checked annually, and a reasonable amount of canvassing goes into it. We politicians bemoan inaccuracy because we do not want to lose a single vote, and we do not like to find that a household is not properly registered. In my constituency, 20 people may be registered as living in a certain property, but when we knock on the door we find that only four people are living there, and that none of them are those whose names are on the register.

Mr. Barnes: Millions of people are missing from electoral registers. Some are registered to vote in the

wrong area, and some are dead. I know that the Bill deals with some of the problems by suggesting change, but this argument seems to be based on the desirability of continuing the present situation.

Mr. Allan: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the inaccuracies, but I think that the register is more accurate than many other sources of data.

Mr. Greenway: The intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was timely, but I think that the opposite of what he said is the case. As I understand it, he wants to restrict the commercial sale of the electoral register because he believes that it discourages people from registering. However, a great many people who are not currently registered are seriously disadvantaged for that reason. That is why it is crucial for them to understand the importance of any opt-out provisions, or, better still, to be given an explanatory leaflet.

Mr. Allan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire is right about the disincentive to register, and I think that there are many others. I agree that the poll tax was one, and that mistake should not be repeated, but I am not sure that the proposals that we are discussing constitute a positive discouragement.
The working group had anecdotal evidence in the form of complaints sent to the Home Office, and to individual Members of Parliament. I am not persuaded. I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a large-scale failure to register for the reasons that I have mentioned. I can see that the poll tax, or a similar move to link tax or similar burdens to electoral rights, might constitute a discouragement, but I do not think that this proposal, as it stands, constitutes such a discouragement. Nevertheless, I think that people will be misled in other respects: in particular, I think they will assume that the issue is connected with direct marketing. People who try to obtain credit on the telephone—perhaps to buy the car to which I referred earlier—will be told that they cannot have credit because they are not on the system, and that that is because they did not register with a credit reference agency via the electoral register. Only then will they discover where the problem originated.
Amendment No. 79 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State examines the matter again to verify for his purposes and those of the House that any proposals that he makes are in the public interest. The aim is to return the issue of public interest to the debate about data protection principles. We have moved quite a long way, without necessarily considering all the public interest implications. The amendment is intended to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that any changes are subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses. We think that that is a positive move, and I am sure that the Minister will accept it, as I know from earlier debates that he is the kind of Minister who likes to say yes if he possibly can. We are offering him an opportunity to say yes to both Houses of Parliament. I am sure that he would look forward to that. It is an important point.
I hope that the Minister will say how he originally envisaged introducing the regulations and that, given the argument that it is a significant change with wide impact,


he is now persuaded that he should take a belt-and-braces approach to ensure that parliamentarians get a good chance to scrutinise the regulations in detail.

Mr. Fabricant: I apologise to the Committee for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I was at an Engineering Council meeting, from which I could not get away.
Members of Parliament have probably received more letters on this clause than on any other aspect of the Bill. The letters come from a wide range of interested parties, ranging from the Consumer Credit Trade Association to the National Blind Childrens Society, all of which will be affected by clause 9.
As I was not here at the beginning to hear the speech of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who always makes worthwhile contributions, I will not speak at length on the amendment, but I should like to describe the sort of people who wrote to me and what they said. I mentioned in an intervention that Help the Aged had contacted me and suggested that "information" be substituted by "names and addresses". However, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has pointed out that that would not have the effect that Help the Aged wants.
Interestingly, the National Blind Childrens Society points out that clause 9 will be costly. May I put in a little politics? It has highlighted another stealth tax. It says:
I would remind you that although it is the government policy to help charities and the voluntary sector a tax of £7,000 per annum has recently been imposed on most charities"—
by the Government—
through the telephone preference system.
Sadly, it is one of the most awful of the stealth taxes in that it directly affects charities such as the NBCS.
Marie Curie Cancer Care has written to criticise aspects of clause 9. Barclays bank has said that it will create real difficulty as it
has the potential to exacerbate financial exclusion, as the electoral register is presently used as part of the credit checking process, especially where no other data is held on that individual".
That is a problem that the Government have to address in any event.
As we have seen on programmes such as "Watchdog", some people suddenly find that they are unable to borrow money because it turns out that they have a bad credit reference. When they try to find out why, they are unable to do so. The position will not be helped by clause 9 as it stands. A similar letter has been received from the British Bankers Association. I have already mentioned the Consumer Credit Trade Association.
We have also heard from the Direct Marketing Association. One individual—let me give him a plug—Trevor Oxborrow, wrote an interesting letter from Campbeltown, Argyll. Mrs. Jefkins from Croydon, Surrey feels strongly about the issue, as does John Lovell. The WWAV Rapp Collins Group have written.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Name a constituent.

Mr. Fabricant: Sadly, of all the representations that I have received from all parts of the country, none has come from Lichfield. That is untypical of my constituents, who follow in the footsteps of one Lichfield's great sons, Dr. Samuel Johnson, a great letter writer.
I have also heard from Andy Watkins of Willingdon, Eastbourne—which is near where I was born—and from Prostaff Funding Ltd., in Chester-le-Street, in County Durham.
Clearly, there is dissatisfaction with clause 9. I hope that the Minister—like Lloyds TSB, which also is unhappy with the Bill's provisions—is in listening mode. If he wants to buy himself a larger house, I am sure that, in the tradition of one of his very senior colleagues, he will want to borrow not from a friend, but from a building society, and to know that his credit rating will enable him to borrow the necessary sum. It is therefore in his interests, and those of all hon. Members, that clause 9 be amended. Most importantly, however, it is in the interests of charities and our constituents that it be amended as they require.

Mr. Howarth: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has the privilege of representing a part of the country that I once represented, I have to own up and apologise for not being in the Chamber for the beginning of the debate. Unlike him, however, I have taken advantage of technology and was able to see the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on my television screen and to follow some of the points that he made.
I should first declare an interest, as I am a parliamentary consultant to the Consumer Credit Association, which—like the many other financial organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield; I shall not repeat them all—has a very clear interest in the Government's proposals. The Consumer Credit Association represents the home credit industry, which has about 4 million customers. The point, however, is that the entire credit industry will be affected by the Government's proposals, and my hon. Friend has described only some of those who are greatly concerned about them.
In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire—who is the authentic voice of old Labour, not many of whom, unlike him, put their head above the parapet nowadays—said that electoral register availability was part of a ghastly plot to enable commercial interests to flourish, make profits and take money from people. However, I think that the boot is very much on the other foot, as availability of such information is at least of mutual interest to both consumers and lenders. I submit, moreover, that availability is principally in consumers' interest.
2.15 pm
I profoundly agreed with most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which may come as more of a shock to him than to me, and believe that he was absolutely right to say that consumers will suffer if electoral information is not available. Consumers who go into Currys or a car dealership to buy something but are unable to obtain credit will wonder why that has happened. Consumers will not realise the risks that they run by using the proposed provisions and removing their name from the electoral register.
Consumers are the ones who will be embarrassed at the check-out desk and irritated when they are unable to buy a product that they had every intention of buying. Financial institutions are not necessarily the ones that will be disadvantaged by the proposals.
It is no good encouraging prudent lending if we deny lenders some of the means by which they may exercise that prudence in lending. As most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate accept, the electoral register provides a very important basis for prudent lending.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made the valid point that Britain does not operate a system of identity cards. I do not support the introduction of such a system in Britain. The Government also do not support introducing such a system, as the absence of one here provides one of the few bases on which we are able to argue with some of our European partners that we must maintain border controls. Regardless, I believe that it would be impossible to persuade Parliament to pass such a system, as, quite rightly, the British people would resist having to produce an Ausweis—as they are called in Germany—at the behest of a police officer or anyone else. We are somewhat truculent as a people about that sort of thing.

Mr. Fabricant: I remind my hon. Friend and the Committee that Belgium has just withdrawn from the Schengen agreement.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that information—which I, too, had spotted in the pages of The Daily Telegraph, the newspaper that one can trust. That act, with Belgian chocolates, is one of the few advantages of Belgium.
Another aspect of the electoral register's financial role is its impact on social exclusion, which has already been mentioned in the debate. Although obtaining credit is not that difficult for most of us—although, as Members of Parliament, we are perhaps not in the most financially sound condition—banks are increasingly unwilling to lend to people who do not score well on computer checks. For those people, availability of electoral register information is even more important. Therefore, the Government's proposals to provide for an edited electoral register will increase rather than decrease social exclusion.
I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which very carefully considered those issues. It is worth reminding the Committee that, at paragraph 50 of our report, the Committee took the view that
because of the importance of openness in the electoral process, and so that political parties are able properly to check the lists and to canvass voters, we see no alternative to the general principle that copies of the register should be generally available, at least for electoral purposes.
I know that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire believes that those are the only purposes for which copies should be made available, but—as not only I but many other hon. Members have made clear—there are other good reasons why electors benefit from wider electoral register availability. If the electoral register is mutilated, electors are the ones who will suffer.
The Committee, in considering whether people should be able to opt out of the register, decided that they should be able to do so only in exceptional circumstances. In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)—I was not able to attend the debate, but I have read his remarks—listed those exceptional circumstances.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman dealt with how to judge whether circumstances are exceptional, but the Committee drew attention to the fact that the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors has suggested that the decision might be made only on the recommendation of the chief constable for the area, a responsible person who would be able to check whether someone had a truly justifiable reason to opt out—such as in the case of Jill Dando, who was generally at risk, or of a battered woman being pursued by an ex-husband. I believe that a chief constable would be a good arbiter of who should be excluded.
I believe that the Government's proposals put us in grave danger of doing something for the best of reasons—to provide electors with a choice, and to allow people, for good reason, to exclude their name from the electoral register—that we should not do. As people see the impact of the new arrangements on their daily lives, those good reasons will lead to irritation and frustration that Parliament, having had the deficiencies drawn to its attention, failed to take them into account and steamrollered on to produce a system that does not benefit the electorate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield mentioned WWAV Rapp Collins, which, I am told, is not a pop group but the largest direct marketing mail company in Europe, accounting for 11 per cent. of the Royal Mail's business in the direct mail sector. The company puts 200 million items in the post every year on behalf of its clients, so it is a major player and a major contributor to the Royal Mail's coffers and is not to be trifled with. When I met representatives of the company yesterday, they expressed their disappointment that the business community was not well represented on the working party. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made that point in his criticisms of the consultation process. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the commercial world is acting not only in its own interests, but in the interests of the wider electorate. Its views need to be listened to.
A mail order catalogue customer who is off the electoral register will find not just that their credit rating cannot be checked, but that the company will not be able to deliver the goods. If a customer comes from an area where fraud tends to be prevalent, the company will go to the register and ask, for example, "Does Mr. Pound live here in Ealing?"

Mr. Stephen Pound: That is what my wife wants to know.

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman's wife has ordered a wonderful dress through a mail order catalogue to go to the Blairite ball of the millennium and her part of Ealing does not have a good reputation, the company will wish to verify her status. If she is not on the electoral register, the company will conclude that the order is fraudulent. That is a practical example of how the arrangement could impact on our constituents. As we all know, we will be the first to be criticised. People will write to their Member of Parliament to know what is going on and why they cannot get credit for their mail order products. We shall only be adding to our own mailbags. In the interests of the Minister's peace of mind and easing the pressure that I know he is under, I ask him not to add to his burdens or ours.
Mail order companies try to target their mailshots. If the register is not comprehensive—that word was used by the hon. Member for Hallam, and I entirely agree—they will not be able to target their mailshots so well. I accept that the register can never be as comprehensive as we would like, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire pointed out, but it is the most comprehensive Bible that we have. If companies cannot target their mailshots so well, the result will be more junk mail, more irritated consumers and more irritated constituents for us. It is unfortunate that we are risking that.
When I was out of the House, I worked for a company called Prime Response in Brentford. It had a fantastic idea for dealing with junk mail, called OVS—occupation verification system. It was to deal with people who had gone away or were deceased, not people who did not want to be on the list. The company wanted to use the monthly records of the utilities, because when we move house the first thing that we do is stop the gas bills in one place and start them at the new place. That is instantaneous recognition of moving house. That information would be provided monthly by the utilities, and the company wanted to run it encrypted against its data lists. Anyone who had been on a list to receive direct marketing material but had moved house would have been removed and the new occupant would not have received the previous occupant's junk mail. That was monstrously stopped by the Data Protection Registrar, who stood in the way.

Mr. Pound: It is illegal.

Mr. Howarth: I know that it is illegal, but for goodness sake, we are in practical politics to try to help our constituents. The information would have been entirely encrypted. Instead, we continue to chop down trees and irritate people for no good purpose when computerisation could have prevented that.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend think that the Data Protection Registrar would be a suitable person to oversee the provisions envisaged in the clause? That is central to our amendment No. 91.

Mr. Howarth: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend when he spoke to amendment No. 91. I agree with him, subject to my remarks about the Data Protection Registrar and the way in which she dealt with the issue that I am talking about. She needs to be practical. My hon. Friend's suggestion in amendment No. 91 would go some way to meeting problems that have been raised on both sides of the Committee. It would meet the problem raised by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire about only people registered with the Data Protection Registrar having access to the register.
I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that there are some practical problems with the Government's proposals. The electors and consumers of Britain will be more disadvantaged than the commercial world unless we take action to remedy the idea of having an edited register. We should not pursue that idea. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, particularly about the concerns of the financial world.

Mr. Pound: I shall speak briefly, because I have already made many of my points. I should like to follow up some of the comments of the hon. Member for

Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who referred to a sophisticated screening system for dealing with junk mail. In my part of west London, we have a cruder, if not more earthy method of screening junk mail. I have in my garden a piece of equipment called the little rotter, which is a home composter that produces an excellent tilth to spread on the garden.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) as the authentic voice of old Labour and said that few such Members were prepared to put their heads above the parapet. Although I see myself as new old Labour, or even old new Labour—maybe even past-it Labour—I am normally only too proud and pleased to associate myself with my hon. Friend's comments, because his analyses and views are always comprehensive and well researched and usually worthy of support. Sadly, on this occasion I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with my hon. Friend and, even more worryingly, having considerable sympathy with the arguments expressed by the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Aldershot and, sad to say, for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan).
The hon. Member for Aldershot has spent a fair amount of time in Dartmoor prison with me. We had many conversations and I have come to have almost a grudging respect for him. I have to say that when one is locked up with a Conservative Member for any length of time, there is not much else one can do. They would not allow anything else—of course, Mr. Aitken had his poetry.
2.30 pm
Hon. Members have made a range of points around a central nexus. None of them implied anything other than that the Government's intentions in this matter, as in all matters, are good. This is not a partisan Bill. Indeed, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) apologised, as he often does, for bringing in crude party politics. There is wide recognition that something needs to be done; I hope that the Bill is worthy of amendment and will be far better for it.
We talked about the accuracy of the electoral register. There are two strands of argument. Many people consider that the existing electoral register is one of the most accurate databases of its type. There are obvious problems as it is updated in November and published in February. I moved into a property in the mid-1970s and found that the previous occupant had subscribed to a large number of esoteric gentleman's publications.

Mr. David Taylor: From the Conservative Association.

Mr. Pound: Conservative Newsline was by far the most offensive of them. For several months they arrived on my doorstep in plain brown envelopes. It is often difficult to get credit for the first year after one moves. Although the electoral register is not totally accurate, it is certainly more than 90 per cent. accurate. Local authorities that I have known—as a citizen and as an elected representative—put a great deal of effort into it. It is as accurate as it can be. If the hon. Member for Hallam manages to get 20 names on the electoral register where there should be only four, that only confirms all my prejudices about Liberal Democrats—or most of them, anyway.
The two major credit reference companies—Experion and Equifax—were mentioned. Like a number of hon. Members, I have spoken to them, particularly to Equifax. Equifax is not a charity; it is a business seeking to perform a service in exchange for recompense. Making a profit is certainly not illegal and is likely to become even less illegal, and those companies provide an important service.
We have to recognise that we live in an imperfect world and a society in which many people are denied access to credit by the mechanisms that give most of us access to credit although we are on short-term contracts—except the hon. Member for Aldershot who seems to come back no matter what the electors do. There will always be an informal mechanism for gaining credit, or at least cash to spend. We all know from working people in our constituencies about Christmas clubs and other savings schemes. Those mechanisms are immensely expensive to people with no access to credit and normal methods of saving and all the advantages of deferred payments and interest-free payments, but they have to use something. Surely it is better if they are included in the financial mainstream. If the springboard into that mainstream is having their name on the electoral register, so be it. If nothing else is around, let us keep it that way.
More important, the electoral register is almost a membership list of civic society. If one is on the electoral register, one is part of the civitas—one is a member of society. One can take one's part in society and one can vote. Some people on the electoral register do not have the right to vote. For example, citizens of non-European countries cannot vote in European elections. Some people on the electoral register cannot vote in local authority elections. Peers cannot vote, but they are on the electoral register. However, the fact that they are on the electoral register means that they are part of the community. They are on the membership list. It may seem an almost intangible point, but it is important to be recognised as part of society.
The point has been made about people who wish to avoid being traced. When we discussed the issue previously, the Minister said quite rightly that in a world where one can buy a round piece of plastic for a few pounds and get the names of everyone in the country, and some woman fleeing from her husband can be in fear of being relocated by technological advances, clearly something must be done. Surely the right not to have one's address shown—one's name can appear without an address—should be retained. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water, let us try not to damage people unintentionally while seeking to do good to people who deserve it.
I shall conclude as the point has been made. I shall resist the temptation succumbed to by the hon. Member for Lichfield who read out his daily correspondence. I have received most of the letters. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire made an important point about charities. We cannot and must not discourage charities, particularly in view of the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week about further Government support for the charitable world.
Like everyone who has spoken today, I have every confidence in my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that we can cut this Gordian knot and achieve a resolution. I

fervently hope that it will not disadvantage some of the weakest, poorest and most excluded people in society whom we have an absolute duty to represent. I hope that we can show that we are worthy of their trust in us.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I should like to put a different angle on the matter. Broadly speaking, I understand exactly why clause 9 was introduced; I can see the thrust behind it and the desire to provide a measure of protection to those who do not wish the electoral register to serve as a way of publicising their details so that they receive a lot of information that they do not want.
I turn to the matter not so much as an issue of principle, but with a lawyer's eye. What strikes me about clause 9 is that lawyers will make a lot of money out of it. It is an enormously complex clause. While I fully understand that the Government cannot provide the detailed provisions that will subsequently be made in regulations, there is quite enough here to make me think that it will all be unworkable. Are we not simply adopting the tactics of King Canute? The material will be in the public domain. Whether or not we seek to regulate it in the way that clause 9 suggests, people will undoubtedly make use of it. I am sure that they will be sufficiently creative to deny that the information comes from the electoral register.
I have a niggling feeling that, despite our having gone through all this paraphernalia, people will still make use of the full register while denying that the information comes from that register, and very little will be able to be done about it.
The debate—which has been very interesting—has gone through various possible permutations about how the system should be regulated. It may be the chief constable who says that certain people can be excluded from the edited and the main register. A little bell rings in my mind saying that there will be lawyers' fees on judicial review. Let us face it: countless people will want to challenge it and disagree with the verdict. Unless the Minister produces provisions that are so remarkable that I shall stand up and admit that I have got it all wrong, I think that we are making a rod for our backs when there has always been widespread acceptance that the electoral register is a public document and people may make use of it. It is one of the burdens of citizenship that we were discussing yesterday.
In supporting the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I see it not as the be-all and end-all of the matter, but as just possibly a step in the right direction. Generally speaking, I am troubled by clause 9. That is not because it is ill-intended—the Government clearly have proper intentions—but because it is unworkable. It is a great merit in legislation to keep things simple. Anybody reading clause 9 would know at once that it was complex and difficult. We may regret what we have done when the consequences start to seep through, although members of my profession will probably be delighted.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have had a good debate, and I welcome you, Mrs. Dunwoody, to the Chair. Important points were made by all the hon. Members who participated, mostly in non-partisan fashion. Despite sterling efforts, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) failed to be partisan and, in fact, sounded very reasonable and balanced.
In many ways, the debate followed yesterday's interesting and important debate on the way in which modern technology, especially the search facilities that CD-ROM provides, enables people to identify the address of anyone who is registered to vote within a short time by pressing a few computer keys. That could enable someone searching for a battered spouse—or a stalker searching for his victim—to use the electoral register to find the person, a purpose for which it was never intended. We discussed the possibility of having what I called secret voters and others called anonymous voters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made some important points and touched on that proposal. The House considered that yesterday and took the view that the proposal would cause so many difficulties that it should not be adopted at this stage.
The essence of the Government's position—and that of the working party—is that people should not be obliged by law to register to vote and then have their whereabouts passed, without consent, to someone else who may intend to use the information for purely commercial purposes, requests for charitable donations or more sinister reasons. At the moment, it is possible for someone to obtain the information without the consent of the person who is registered, but that person is obliged by law to register and must pay a penalty if he or she does not. That raises a serious issue about the right to privacy and begs the question of what we are using the sanction of the law, including the ability to fine people, to achieve, when they may have reasons for wishing not to disclose their whereabouts.
The ability of commercial companies to use the register for sending junk mail is one of the main sources of complaints to returning officers and the Home Office. People are sick of junk mail and they want something to be done. Individuals have a right to privacy and should be able to consent to the release of information about them. The current position may also trespass on some areas covered by the European convention on human rights, but that may be an issue for the courts at a later stage. We have also touched on issues of data protection and the way in which information is used. I assure the Committee that the Data Protection Registrar was consulted throughout the formulation of our policy.

Mr. Allan: I agree that the debate raises data protection issues. Did the Government consider the other option of trying to ensure that the compilation of the register complied with data protection principles while still allowing its use for wider purposes? Was that considered or was the only response to try to limit the use of electoral register?

Mr. O'Brien: The working party formulated the strategy that we have sought to implement. That working party included a representative from both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party, and they united behind the view that has been put forward. The Data Protection Registrar was also fully involved in considering the issues.
If the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) were to be accepted, there would continue to be only a single version of the electoral register listing the names of all

electors in the relevant area, but its availability would be severely limited. Only those people who had been prescribed in regulations would be able to obtain it and they could use it only for certain prescribed purposes. There would be no edited version that could be bought freely and used for wider purposes.
I am aware that my hon. Friend is not alone in believing that much tighter controls should be placed on the availability of the electoral register. It was because of this that the working party on electoral procedures devoted considerable time to the issue. Its conclusion, which was supported by all of its members—including Liberal Democrat and Conservative—was that:
the arguments for retaining a commercially available register are strong".
Nevertheless, the working party recommended that people should be able to opt out of being included in the register that was made available for sale. The working party suggested that there should be two versions of the register—a full one that could be used for electoral and law enforcement purposes and an edited version, which would be freely available for sale, containing only the names of those who have not exercised their right to be excluded from it. Clause 9 allows for regulations to that effect to be made. As we explained on Second Reading, we are still considering exactly what form those regulations should take.
I assure the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that we will fully consult the various industries involved, the charities and others, as part of the process of bringing forward regulations. Indeed, no doubt the House will wish to discuss in due course the impact that the regulations would have.
Few things in life are simple and few things are more difficult than trying to balance competing interests. This is a classic case where different interests are pulling in different ways. On the one hand, the working party on electoral procedures was very clear that, as a matter of principle, information that individuals are required by law to provide for one purpose should not be available for use for other purposes without their consent.
We must also take very careful consideration of the European convention on human rights and data protection principles, as well as the more general notion of a right to privacy. We know that the public resent the delivery of junk mail, some of which they receive as a result of their names appearing on the electoral register. More worryingly, we know of cases where abusive spouses have traced their former partners through the register.

Mr. Greenway: What research has the Department undertaken into how often the electoral register is used as the raw data and sole source for the sending out of unsolicited mail?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to the question of unsolicited mail in a moment. However, for the companies who send out such mail, the register is only one of a number of sources of raw data. The factors that arouse concern in all members of the Committee need to be balanced by recognition that this country has flourishing credit and direct marketing industries. They make extensive use of the electoral register, and we would like to avoid doing undue harm to them—or to the charities that also use the register. We are considering how best to achieve that balance.
I can assure the Committee that we are in touch with the industries concerned. Home Office officials held a meeting with representatives of the credit industry just before Christmas to see whether a way could be found to accommodate the industry's needs within the constraints imposed by the EU data protection directive and the European convention on human rights.
Those discussions will inform any regulations that we introduce. Such regulations—which I assure the Committee will be accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment—will be fully debated in the House. I can also tell the Committee that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That answers one of the points raised in amendment No. 79.
Amendment No. 23 is unnecessary and, because it would tilt the scales firmly in one direction, prejudicial.
I can deal briefly with amendment No. 21, as I do not object to it.
It might be helpful to the Committee if I were to say a little about the arrangements for introducing the new system with two versions of the electoral register. The public will obviously be unfamiliar with the new opt-out box on the electoral registration form and will need to be given an explanation of its purpose and effect. We propose that the form should be accompanied by an explanatory leaflet. We have already discussed this with the credit and marketing industries, as the hon. Member for Ryedale noted, and we believe that they will want to play their part in helping to settle the content of the leaflet. They have already indicated that they would be willing to pay some or all of the costs involved, as the leaflet would clearly bring some direct benefit to them.
The leaflet would need to explain the uses to which the edited register may be put. The key point is that people will be able to make an informed decision about exercising their right to opt out. They will have that choice, and it will be up to them to make it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: In his consultations with the credit industry, has the Minister accepted that the paramount need is that the leaflet points out—in words of one syllable and in the boldest possible fashion—the risk to electors, as consumers, if their names are removed from the main register?

Mr. O'Brien: There would be no point in having a leaflet if it did not say in clear terms what the impact of opting out would be. We believe that people considering opting out should be clear about what the effect would be. We want the leaflet to tell people that opting out might affect their ability to get credit or other services that they might want. If they were to decide to opt out of the edited register, they should know what the consequences would be. No doubt, some people will choose to opt out, and that will be their right.
However, I point out that opting out is a physical action: people who do it will have to tick a box. It may not be much, but it would require a positive decision. After reading the leaflet, many people will make an informed decision not to tick the box. In that way, for most practical purposes, the register will remain much as

it is now. Some people, however, will decide—for their own, very good, reasons, such as personal safety—that it is right to opt out.

Mr. Greenway: The Minister said that the Government did not object to amendment No. 21. It deals with the matter of the leaflet, as does another group of amendments that we shall come to later. I am grateful for what the Minister said about the importance of the leaflet's contents, and I hope that we will be able to debate that further in a moment.
However, will the Minister tackle the question of the organisations to which the full register will be available? The letter to Colin Lloyd, chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association, made it clear that the full register would not be available for direct marketing purposes. If that is so, many hon. Members from all parties will remain deeply unhappy.

Mr. O'Brien: During the consultations, we want to ensure that all interests are taken into account. We also want to ensure that the leaflet informs the public about the possible uses to which both the full and edited versions of the register may be used for. I am therefore happy to advise the Committee to accept amendment No. 21.

Mr. Pound: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: This will be the last time, as I want to make some progress.

Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend. Is the opt-out to be a rollover? Will people opt out once and for ever, or will they have to do so every year, as the register is renewed? Is the leaflet to be amended every year, or will it stay the same for, say, five, 10 or 15 years?

Mr. O'Brien: People will fill in a form each year, and so, in effect, will be able not to opt out each year. The Government, with the industry, are studying how people, even though they have read the leaflet, might want to opt back in when they discover the implications of opting out. Because there will be a rolling register, we will be able to make new versions of the register available. People may choose to opt into that, thus preventing a delay until the next year.
For example, people who discover that they need credit will want to opt into the edited register. They may well be able to do that. We shall have to determine how that might be facilitated and the burden that doing so might place on electoral registration officers. I am not giving an undertaking that we will be able to do it, but we will be happy to explore, with the industry, how that might happen.

Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I said that I would not give way again, but I shall do so for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Greenway: I repeat my earlier question. Will the direct marketing industry be among those for whom the full register will be available? The hon. Gentleman's letter of 12 January to the chief executive of the Direct Market Association makes it abundantly clear that the full version


will be made available only for electoral purposes, law enforcement, crime prevention, and in connection with applications for credit. That is being interpreted as meaning that organisations involved in direct marketing and even debt recovery will not be able to have the full register.

Mr. O'Brien: We are discussing the detail of that with the industry. It is our intention that the full register shall not be completely available to the direct marketing industry. However, we are examining with the industry ways in which credit issues can be better resolved. Direct marketers will not receive the full register because that would conflict with the European Union data protection directive.

3 pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way, but I have said that I want to make progress.
I see very little point to amendment No. 91. I do not think that it serves any real purpose, and it also introduces a new and undefined concept of exempt purposes. Clause 9 replaces paragraphs 10 and 11 of schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 with four new paragraphs. Those paragraphs govern the regulations that may be made under that Act.
New paragraphs 10B(1) and 11(1) are quite clear. They allow for regulations to be made requiring or authorising electoral registration officers to supply copies of their full electoral register to specified people for specified purposes. But—this is the crucial point—we believe that the Bill is flexible enough to accommodate whatever regulations the House chooses to make. Anyone whom it is decided should be entitled to a copy of the full register will be able to receive it, and it will be possible to limit that person's use of it to prescribed purposes.
The suggestion in the amendment that access to the full register should be granted to those registered under the Data Protection Act does not take us any further forward. Anyone may be registered under that Act, and the test should be whether a person or organisation has a good case for having access to the full register rather than whether they are so registered.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the hon. Member for Ryedale will realise that the amendment is unnecessary and will withdraw it.
I must admit to being somewhat confused by the Liberal Democrats' amendments Nos. 77 and 78. They would substitute for the word "information" the words "personal names and addresses". It is not clear what that is intended to achieve, although I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said. The only information on the register is personal and consists of names and addresses, plus ages of young people who will attain voting age during the currency of the register. That information would not be much use without their names and addresses, although I understand the point that removing the names is one way of approaching the matter.
I appreciate that some charities use untargeted mailshots and simply need to know how many households there are in a street rather than the names of the occupants.

Direct mailings resulting from the electoral register, however worthy the originators, are one of the main sources of complaints to the Home Office and electoral administrators. We would need to be very careful not to undermine any new regime relating to access to the full electoral register by creating too many exemptions. In any event, the edited register will normally be sufficient for ascertaining how many households are in a particular location. There has been confusion on the part of charities about knowing how many people were registered. In fact, there is no reason why the edited version of the register should not say how many people are registered, without identifying their names or addresses.
Amendment No. 79 is quite simply unnecessary. As I have already explained, regulations on this matter are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The requirement to issue a declaration that regulations are "in the public interest" is therefore unnecessary. The Home Secretary would never bring forward regulations which he did not believe were in the public interest—nor, I hope, would any Home Secretary—and Parliament would not endorse them if it did not hold the same belief.
Finally, let me say that I have sympathy with the spirit behind new clause 5. The Bill will make significant improvements to our electoral procedures, and it would be quite wrong if, having introduced the changes, we sat back and ignored their operation, but that will not happen. Too many people are interested in the operation of our electoral procedures to allow problems and weaknesses to go unaddressed. The working party on electoral procedures, whose report has given birth to the Bill, is an example of the constant review process. Reference has also been made to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which published its report on electoral law and administration a year ago. That is a further illustration that our electoral procedures are the subject of continuing scrutiny.
Once new regulations governing access to the full electoral register are in place, we can expect the public and any industries which are affected to make their views known about the impact of those regulations. Political parties and electoral administrators will doubtless also have a view. If I may be so bold, I suggest that the electorate, political parties and candidates, industry and the electoral administrators will, between them, provide a far better impression of the effectiveness of our electoral procedures than a report compiled in Whitehall.
I have no doubt that hon. Members will continue to raise points of concern and, where appropriate, changes will be made to accommodate them. A good example of this is the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. There was concern on both sides of the House about spoiler candidates, although I know that the party of the hon. Member for Hallam had particular reason to feel aggrieved, and we introduced legislation to deal with the problem.
I apologise for having spoken at such length, Mrs. Dunwoody, but it is important to deal with these crucial issues. I should like to deal with a couple of other points raised in the debate. I was asked whether the electoral register will continue to be used for dealing with issues such as money laundering checks. The full register will be available for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes, which include money laundering and


fraud prevention checks. We have invited the financial industry to consider the best way in which to facilitate that.
We are considering the extent to which the full register will be available for financial institutions for credit reference checks, as I have already said. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) asked whether the provisions would harm the socially excluded. There is an argument that people on the margins of society would be less likely to be given credit if they were given the right to opt out of the commercially available register. As the socially excluded are the group least likely to register, we do not believe that that is the case. Indeed, the Bill will make it easier for the homeless and those who change their accommodation frequently to get on the electoral register. They are not obliged to opt out, in which case their chances of getting credit are increased. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about people not being able to obtain credit. No doubt, people will take that factor into account when they read the leaflet.
The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to the claim of the Confederation of British Industry that the changes would cost business £500 million, and asked how that could be justified. The figure of £500 million that the credit industry produced represents, by its own admission, the cost to the industry rather than to the economy as a whole. We suspect that much of the effect will be offset by displacement. A person who is refused credit when trying to buy a video recorder will go elsewhere for it or will spend the money on something else.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extent of consultation with the credit industry during the working party. I assure him that there were many representations from charities and businesses, and they were taken fully into account during the course of the working party's deliberations.
We do not propose to make the full register available for the purposes of debt recovery. We have agreed that with the Data Protection Registrar. Her view is that to allow the register to be used for debt recovery would breach the data protection directive.
We propose that people should be able to make an informed choice. Through this measure, we are enabling them to do so. The way in which the measure will operate will give individuals some protection of their privacy and will offer some limited protection to those who may, for perfectly legitimate reasons—perhaps for their personal safety—not want their names and addresses to be widely disseminated. We believe that we have struck a balance in the legislation, which will achieve some safeguards for the industry and will ensure that individuals are taken into account, and that their privacy is not sacrificed for commercial gain. I hope that we have been able to get the balance right.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out that the legislation was complex. His view seemed to be that we were adopting the tactics of King Canute. In effect, he was almost arguing that we should give up any idea of having individual choice and privacy and not try to protect them. He suggested that that would cause—horror of horrors—some judicial reviews. As the Minister who has probably been the most judicially reviewed of all members of the Government during the

past three years, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that judicial reviews can be properly dealt with; indeed, they can enhance the law. In relation to the distribution of the burdens of citizenship, I want to give a little more strength to the individual, rather than to the collective. As a Conservative, the hon. Gentleman might see some advantage in doing so.

Mr. Greenway: I have a few comments in response to the Minister's remarks. Anyone who has been watching our proceedings during the past two hours could only conclude that the Committee of the Whole House has been displayed at its best in this debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made strong and convincing arguments to which the Minister has responded in considerable detail.
However, we can only offer the Minister one and a half cheers for his response.

Mr. O'Brien: Why not two cheers?

Mr. Greenway: No, I think it should be one and a half. We are grateful to the Minister for suggesting that he would accept amendment No. 21. I hope to catch your eye, Mrs. Dunwoody, when we come to the next-but-one group of amendments, so that the Committee can briefly discuss leaflets. I am grateful for the Minister's acceptance of the fact that the leaflet explaining to households the consequences of ticking an opt-out box is still a matter for debate, and for his recognition of the importance of such a leaflet in enabling voters to understand the matter. That is the reason for the one and a half cheers.
However, the Minister has not convinced the Committee that the full register should not be available more widely than it would be under his proposals. It is completely illogical that the data protection directive permits the full register to be used for credit referencing—we are grateful for the Minister's confirmation that the Government agree with that—but not for debt recovery. Similarly, the full register will not be made available, through whatever limited, licensed and regulated means—all yet to be determined—for the direct market industry and many other companies that have a legitimate use for it.
Clause 9 will provide for regulations, which are yet to be laid—I appreciate that they will be subject to further discussion—but the effect will be to supply copies of the full register only to prescribed people. However, we are not 100 per cent. sure who those people will be and, more important, about the mechanism whereby they will be included in the list for the full register, or not put on the list and told that they cannot have the register.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: In relation to the credit industry, is my hon. Friend clear as to whether the Government intend to make the full register available only to the major credit reference agencies, or to the wider credit industry—the banks and other finance houses?

Mr. Greenway: My interpretation of the Minister's remarks is that the register would be available to the credit reference industry, but not to the banks—hence my point as to the illogicality of the measure. There is no way that the data protection directive can grant consent to give the


list to one and not to the other. Perhaps, we shall have the opportunity to debate the matter again on Report next week.
I hear what the Minister says about amendment No. 91, but the fact is—

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I hope that I can clarify the point. Certainly, the full register will be available to political parties, but it would not be available, in an uncontrolled way, to everyone in the direct marketing or the various credit industries. However, we are discussing with the industries whether we might devise with them properly controlled and safeguarded mechanisms so that individual privacy would be protected, while allowing for some checking.

Mr. Greenway: Perhaps that gets us to two cheers, but we are still missing one. We are still not satisfied that the Committee has a sufficient idea of how prescription under these new regulations will differentiate between one organisation and another. The real reason that we tabled amendment No. 91 and that we ask the Committee to support it—despite the fact that the Minister has given way on some points—is because it is the only measure that gives us a clue as to whom the full register might be made available: organisations registered under the Data Protection Acts. Those will all be bona fide organisations. The Minister's point as regards continuing discussion relates to the way in which organisations use the full register. That is valid; we understand that those regulations will be equally important.
However, I ask the Committee to reflect on the fact that we are talking about two quite separate stages of the process. The first is the prescription of those to whom the full register will be available—to which organisations. The second is the prescription of what those organisations can do with the full register. Before Report, the Minister needs to do a little more work on the first stage. For that reason, I ask the Committee to support amendment No. 91 in a Division, not because the amendment is perfect, but to show the Minister that we are still dissatisfied about the availability of the full register to bona fide organisations.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) apologised for missing my speech moving the amendment. He is now missing the great opportunity to hear my second speech on the matter. I am not sure whether it is a criticism of the hon. Gentleman, or of me. He wanted the register to be available widely for commercial use and by charities. I am in favour of charities having addresses for collections of jumble and so on, which is why I support amendment No. 77. I am trying also to block the commercial usage of electoral registers.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) described me as old Labour, yet if he looks at many of my amendments, he will see that I am an arch-moderniser. In fact, I am such a moderniser that I am ahead of Government Front Benchers on these matters. Modernisation is supposed to be the main element of the third way philosophy, which has gripped the Labour party, so it is not easy to define my position as old or new Labour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to the register as if it were accurate

and reasonable. My hon. Friend waxed lyrical about the register, which he regarded as a sign of citizenship upon which everybody was established. It is not because masses of people are missing from it, and there are some whom we do not allow to register.
In earlier amendments, I proposed to enfranchise 680,000 overseas residents in this country who are not entitled to be on a register and are not part of our civic list. How will they get credit facilities in this country if the electoral register is used for this key service for our citizens? I bet that many of those 680,000 will manage well the arrangements within society in terms of credit and other companies.
The hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Hallam are cherry-picking my amendments. There is nothing wrong with that—I am a cherry-picker in terms of the Patten report on Northern Ireland. However, their cherry-picking is wrong, and the Opposition are attempting to turn my amendments into the exact opposite of what I propose by latching on to a particular amendment.

Mr. David Wilshire: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer the Opposition to agree with him some of the time, or never?

Mr. Barnes: I prefer hon. Members to listen to what I have to say, understand it and support absolutely everything that I say.
The hon. Member for Hallam argued for the need for a national register containing everyone's address. If there is a case for that, it would seem to be a matter for an entirely different Bill. To try to subvert the electoral register and to make it a second best national list of names and addresses is inadequate.
I have sympathy for the notion that there should be a national register, tightly controlled by the data protection and other provisions. If there was such a register, it would be a marvellous device to ensure that the electoral register was a proper one, containing everyone's name. However, we do not have that. Neither do we have identity cards, for which the hon. Member for Ryedale argued. I support identity cards but, again, I do so because I see them as a marvellous means of assisting full electoral registration.
Full electoral registration is of overwhelming importance. We are discussing the basic building block of a democracy—the vote. Many other important matters flow from that, such as people's rights in society, their right to organise and so on—but having the vote is the first element. That is why we should ensure that everyone in society is on a register, which is what my amendments are about.
I believe that there is a deterrent effect, of which I have become aware through constituents who have not put their names on registers or are reluctant to have their names on them as they believe that they will be used for other purposes. If people want to engage in general mail shots, registers are not needed. They can use the Post Office to deliver to every house in an area.
One thing that worries me about the Government's position—what I see as the second-best position—is the opt-out box to be ticked if one does not want to be placed on the registers for commercial sale. This will be a great surprise to many of the electorate when they discover that the electoral register is already being used on such a wide


basis. They will be astonished to discover that the register is used for more than just electoral purposes. They will be astonished to discover that it is available in libraries and post offices. When they discover that, they will be unhappy about the arrangements. They will be worried about their neighbours and others being able to check up those matters.
There is also to be a leaflet to alert people to the fact that that has been taking place all along, which will be quite a shock. People may tear up the registration form when they see all of the complexity involved.
My hon. Friend the Minister adopted a balanced position—it reminds me of the Erasmus principle; not too little, not too much, but just right. On one extreme, there is my proposal. On the other, there is the Conservative proposal—to give the register to everyone with money. Then we have the third way between the two extremes to try to get some balance.
The prime argument is the sanctity of the electoral register. If people want some of the other measures that are being talked about, they should turn to legislation in those areas. However, on the principle that I do not believe in banging my head against a brick wall, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 10, line 22, leave out
a registration officer to prepare
and insert "the preparation of".

The Temporary Chairman (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 88, in page 10, line 23, after "which", leave out "he" and insert "the registration officer".

Mr. Greenway: It is our understanding, following discussions with some departmental officials, that both banks and financial institutions and the direct marketing industry have advanced the concept that it may well be advantageous to provide for a third party to prepare edited versions of the full register, rather than electoral registration officers. Depending on the outcome of the discussions and the position eventually taken by the Government, there could be quite a big work load for electoral registration officers in the preparation of edited registers and in supervising access to them.
3.30 pm
We understand that some encouragement to the concept in the amendments has been given in the discussions. However, the Bill will not allow for a third party to prepare the edited register or to have any role in preparing either the full or the edited register. So amendment No. 87 would at least provide for that eventuality. The register would not have to be prepared by the electoral registration officer, but could be prepared by a third party. Amendment No. 88 would have a similar effect.
To an extent, these are technical amendments, but they would be crucial to the involvement of a third party. However, they would not require the involvement of a

third party if, at the end of the negotiations and discussions, Ministers were not satisfied that anyone other than electoral registration officers should prepare the registers. The change of wording would not commit the Government to accepting the involvement of a third party, but it would provide the opportunity for a third party to prepare the full or the edited register, or both.
I hope that I am in order if I say that amendment No. 89, which has not been selected for debate, would also be important to such a scheme. It would ensure that the Bill fully meets the requirement for the third-party preparation of registers.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what is an interesting idea. I do not think that the amendment is necessary, but I now see where he is coming from. I have sympathy with his aim of ensuring flexibility. However, I do not think that we need the amendment because the Bill already provides such flexibility.
Preparation of the electoral register is an important function, which is why it has the status of a statutory function and why every relevant local authority must appoint an electoral registration officer. The registration officer may, of course, employ other people to assist him in his duties, although the final responsibility must always rest with him.
The Bill contains provisions that will enable an electoral registration officer to employ another organisation or other individuals to assist him with the preparation of parts of the register. The Bill's wording already provides that flexibility. However, I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to see whether a change of wording might be useful. I should be able to do that within the next few days and we may be able return to the matter, if not on Report, then in another place. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful proposition and I will give further thought to it. However, at present, I do not think that the amendment is necessary.

Mr. Greenway: Can we be clear what the Minister is saying? Has he received advice that the preparation of the register does not preclude electoral registration officers sub-contracting work to someone else?

Mr. O'Brien: That is correct, providing that the final responsibility for what is done and how it is done remains with the electoral registration officer. That is my understanding, but I will take further advice to ensure that that is the position. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman if anything changes.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful response. I take it from what he said that we are correct in our assumption that the idea is being considered and that it is a question of whether the Bill allows for it. I am grateful for his promise to reconsider the issue. I hope that on Report next Wednesday we can reach a conclusion. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Greenway: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 10, line 26, leave out "or on behalf of".

The Temporary Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in page 10, line 32, leave out ", and".
No. 90, in page 10, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert
explaining to persons registered or applying to be registered, or persons acting on behalf of such persons, the means by which they may secure the exclusion of their names and addresses from the edited register".
No. 74, in page 10, line 35, at end insert—
(c) confirming that personal approval has been given for the exclusion of their names and addresses from the register;
(d) explaining fully the consequences of exclusion of their names and addresses from that register.".
No. 75, in page 10, line 35, at end insert—
(3) Provisions requiring that the excluded names and addresses be reinstated on the register in the event of the person registered so requesting.".

Mr. Greenway: The amendments deal with an important issue. When a householder completes the electoral registration form that he will be sent each year or which he requests when moving house so that he can be placed on the new rolling register, we understand that the householder alone will be responsible for ticking the opt-out box on the registration form. He will do so on behalf not only of himself, but of all the other voters at that address.
We are encouraged by what the Minister said earlier about the importance of the leaflet and of the explanation given to electors about the consequences of ticking the opt-out box. However, it is not acceptable for a householder to take responsibility for other adults, so that they do not receive mail or so that their names and addresses are not available to credit reference agencies.
I shall describe the best example that has been provided by industry. Dad fills in a form, but one, two or three of his children of voting age may be at university or college. Quite properly, they will be on the register for their home address, but dad might tick the opt-out box so that all the registered voters in that household go on the edited register. His daughter who, let us say, is at university in Durham—which is where one of my three children went—may go to a shop to buy a television on credit, but may suddenly discover that she cannot receive credit because dad ticked the opt-out box. Her name and address will not be on the list to which the supplier has access.
I know that you, Mrs. Dunwoody, are greatly interested in media matters and that is an interest that we share. However, I was astounded, when I went to the Comet store in Old Kent road to get an ONdigital package, to find that I was able to take it away because the young lady at the counter was able to tap into her computer and discover my address in Gilbert road, Kennington, owing to my being on the electoral register. I suspect that if I had not been on the electoral register, I would not have been allowed to take the item away, regardless of the fact that I am a Member of Parliament and the holder of God knows how many credit cards.
The point that we are stressing in the amendment is that it cannot be right for the householder alone to have responsibility for opting out of access to a whole range of services on behalf of other adults. Unless the Minister is going to give us cause for another cheer, we are not asking him to accept the amendment today, but we hope that on

Report on Wednesday he will state whether the leaflet will make clear the consequences of opting out for all members of the household.
If possible, the leaflet, as well as the electoral registration form, should provide the opt-out box. Any member of the household who wanted to opt out could then do so by using the leaflet, rather than ticking the registration form, which of course most of us want to fill in and send off as quickly as possible, rather than leaving it lying around, particularly as it always comes with a prepaid envelope. Inadvertently, the householder may create a problem by simply ticking the opt-out box on the form.
We covered amendment No. 90 in an earlier debate. It would add to the Bill because it would make it clear that the leaflet provided for in clause 9 would have a specific task of explaining to persons registered or applying to be registered the means by which they may secure the exclusion of their name from the edited register. That would provide more opportunity precisely to spell out the consequences of ticking the opt-out box, which the Minister has acknowledged is important. Our earlier debate made clear those consequences, which every member of the Committee understands could be far reaching, so they should be properly explained.

Mr. Allan: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 73 to 75, in the names of my colleagues. Amendment No. 74 covers some of the same ground as the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It is important that we consider who should be able to authorise the opt-out and the exclusion of someone's name from the edited register. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's speech will have persuaded masses of people not to opt out of the main register when they learn that they will be excluded from the delights of ONdigital if they do so.
There is a fundamental issue of principle here. Earlier the Minister was talking about the individual's choice, and if choice is a principle, to have someone deciding, on behalf of others, to opt out of the register, would be incompatible with the arguments advanced by the Minister. I was attracted by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ryedale—that the opt-out should be included in the leaflet and be separate from the registration form. That would be a sensible way to ensure that we have a clear procedure for sending back the registration form and a second procedure for dealing with opt-out requests. That could be extended to enable people to opt in or out at various times of the year.
The second part of amendment No. 74, which relates to explaining the consequences of exclusion from the register, is to some extent covered by the Minister's arguments about preparing a leaflet. However, the Bill should include provision for explaining the consequences of opting out. Clause 9 makes provision for explaining what the edited register will be used for, but the Bill does not require the regulations to describe the consequences of opting out.
3.45 pm
Amendment No. 75 is important because it would allow people to opt back into the register. The Minister touched on that earlier, but we need clarification about the


procedures for opting in. We also need a procedure for people to obtain their electoral register data, even though they have not been on the public register.
Problems frequently occur when people who have no credit status seek credit, because a credit company will want to know how many years they have been at their address. The current register is not enough; the company will want three or four years' history. I fear that people who are socially and financially excluded and who have opted out for a number of years will want to get hold of their data to prove to somebody that they were resident at an address for several years.
The Minister should consider whether there should be a procedure whereby a fee is paid, not for instant credit, but for people who want proof of residence at an address. They should be able to go to the electoral registration office and get a statement to prove that they have been on the register for certain years. It is important that somebody who has secretly been on the register for several years should be able to prove that, if it is to their advantage. There is no provision in the Bill for people to do so.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the amendments have been tabled in a positive spirit to try to ensure that we make the most of the Government's plan to have two registers. Both amendments deal with provisions that we should like tightened up before the Report stage.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment No. 22 is a deceptive little amendment. It appears harmless, but its effect could well be to damage electoral registration rates, particularly among young people.
It is a long-standing feature of our electoral registration arrangements that the registration form is completed by the head of the household. That may sound a little old-fashioned, but there are good reasons for continuing with that arrangement. Certainly that is the view of electoral registration officers. First, it significantly reduces the number of forms that officers have to process. Secondly, officers have no other way of knowing when new people move into a household or when children reach voting age. The present arrangement makes the head of the household, who may in practice be any member of it, responsible for ensuring that all eligible people are on the electoral register.
Most importantly, without that arrangement very few of our young people would appear on the electoral register. It is regrettable that so few young people would be bothered to take the initiative to register as electors if left to their own devices, but it is certainly not a fact that we can ignore.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Minister suggesting that people deserve the vote if they cannot even be bothered to take the steps necessary to register? It seems a rather odd argument that we should allow people the great privilege and responsibility of voting but rely on someone else to initiate that process. Surely the first test of eligibility to vote should be simply to ask someone to take the initiative to register, whether they are young or not.

Mr. O'Brien: I know that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues are in favour of putting tests

and obstructions in the way of people who wish to vote, but I suggest that we should seek to encourage people to register. The traditional method of registration, which the right hon. Gentleman's party and mine have supported in the past, is that the head of the household takes responsibility for ensuring that those who are under 18 are included on the electoral register so that when they reach 18, they can vote.
That is a good approach. It ensures the registration of many young people who, for life style and other reasons, may not think that they need to register before they turn 18 so that they can vote if an election occurs shortly after their 18th birthday. We ought to make the procedure easier for them and ensure that the head of the household is able to take on that task.
I hope therefore that the Committee will understand why we must preserve the present arrangement under which the electoral registration form is completed by the head of the household. The amendment would strike at the heart of that principle. The head of a household would never be able to complete a form with an opt-out request on behalf of another member of the household. Anyone who wanted to opt out would need to complete his own form. We would rapidly be moving into a system of individual registration which, for the reasons I have advanced, would be a most undesirable step.
Under the scheme that we envisage, once there is an opt-out box the head of a household will be able to take reasonable steps to ascertain the preferences of other members of the household. In the overwhelming majority of cases that would simply involve asking them.
We recognise, however, that there will be cases where that process is simply not possible. In a student hall of residence, for example, we envisage that the warden might put up a notice saying that he intends to send back the electoral registration form in three weeks' time, and that any resident who wishes to exercise the right to opt out should contact him within that period. There are already provisions in the Bill to the effect that if someone deliberately filled in the form incorrectly, he or she would be committing an offence. There is protection for people who might fear some form of mendacity.
That brings me to amendments Nos. 73 and 74, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Under the terms of the first part of amendment No. 74, anyone who wanted to opt out of inclusion on the edited register would need to give his personal approval. So either each individual would need to complete his own form, with all the disadvantages that I have already outlined, or everybody concerned who wanted to opt out would have to sign the same form.
Let us consider the situation of a couple who always decide to exercise their right to opt out. If in one particular year one of the couple happened to be away from home at the time when the electoral registration form was to be completed, that person's partner would not be able to complete the opt-out box on his or her behalf even though he or she was well aware of the preferences of the person concerned. That would be the effect of the amendment, and that does not seem to me to be right.
The second part of amendment No. 74 is unnecessary. As I have already explained, we fully intend to put out a leaflet, to accompany the introduction of the new system,


which will explain the consequences of exercising the right to opt out of inclusion in the edited register. That decision is of importance to all members of a household. Anyone who is head of a household and filling in the form should ensure that he properly consults other members of the household, who may have a view as a result of consequences that may fall on them if the wrong decision is made.
I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 75. I believe that it is unnecessary. It will be open to anyone in respect of whom the box was wrongly ticked, or for whom the box was not ticked although he would have liked it to be, to apply to the registration officer for a correction to be made. We have a rolling register programme, and that is the whole purpose of it.
Amendment No. 90 would delete a provision which allows regulations to be made specifying a form of words for registration officers to use in determining whether people wish their names to be included in the edited register. If there are to be two versions of the register, clearly the electoral registration form needs to explain how people can go about deciding whether they wish to exercise their right to be included in the edited register. We think that a uniform approach to this is needed, which is why the provision which the amendments seeks to delete was included in the Bill. Indeed, the amendment would insert a provision allowing for a form of words to be specified for the purpose of explaining to people how to go about getting their names excluded from the edited register. I cannot see what advantages that offers over and above the provisions that are set out in the Bill.
I do not believe that any of the amendments would improve the Bill and I hope that, given the reasons that I have advanced, hon. Members will decide to withdraw them.

Mr. Greenway: I am not a lawyer and the Minister is. My reading of new paragraph 10(1) in clause 9(2) is wholly different from that of the Government. I do not believe for a second that our amendment would have the adverse consequence that he suggests. Given that the Committee wishes to make progress, and that we have made our point, perhaps we can return to the matter on Report. I do not believe his explanation about the head of the household and the ticking of boxes. I am even more confused about wardens of university colleges explaining whether people will have the box ticked or not. I am not sure whether that explanation was entirely accurate.
In the light of what the Minister said earlier about his willingness to accept amendment No. 21, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 22.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 21, in page 10, line 32, after "which", insert—
both the full register and".—[Mr. Greenway.]
Amendment proposed: No. 91, in page 10, line 42, at end insert—
(ab) to supply to any persons registered under the 1998 Data Protection Act copies of the full register and other documents, or prescribed parts of them, on payment of a prescribed fee and for exempt purposes only"—[Mr. Greenway.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 157, Noes 287.

Division No. 26]
[3.56 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Amess, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye &amp; Inverness W)


Baker, Norman



Baldry, Tony
Key, Robert


Bercow, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Blunt, Crispin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Body, Sir Richard
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brady, Graham
Lidington, David


Brake, Tom
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Breed, Colin
Loughton, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Burnett, John
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Burns, Simon
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Butterfill, John
Maclennan, Fit Hon Robert


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Madel, Sir David



Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Maples, John


Clappison, James
Mates, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice &amp; Howden)
Öpik, Lembit



Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paterson, Owen


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Rendel, David


Flight, Howard
Robathan, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence


Fox, Dr Liam
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fraser, Christopher
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard


Green, Damian
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Greenway, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Grieve, Dominic
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hammond, Philip
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hayes, John
Spring, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Steen, Anthony


Heath, David (Somerton &amp; Frome)
Streeter, Gary


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Stunell, Andrew


Horam, John
Swayne, Desmond


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher &amp; Walton)


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)






Taylor, Sir Teddy
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Tyrie, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Walter, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainger, Nick
Cummings, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Allen, Graham
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dalyell, Tam


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Austin, John
Darvill, Keith


Barnes, Harry
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret



Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fisher, Mark


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Follett, Barbara


Browne, Desmond
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burden, Richard
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fyfe, Maria


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Galloway, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Casale, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hope, Phil


Corbett, Robin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corston, Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Cranston, Ross
Hoyle, Lindsay


Crausby, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)





Hurst, Alan
Pollard, Kerry


Hutton, John
Pond, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pope, Greg


Illsley, Eric
Pound, Stephen


Jenkins, Brian
Powell, Sir Raymond


Johnson, Alan (Hull W &amp; Hessle)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles



Rammell, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Keen, Alan (Feltham &amp; Heston)
Rogers, Allan


Kemp, Fraser
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Roy, Frank


King, Andy (Rugby &amp; Kenilworth)
Ruane, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruddock, Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Salter, Martin


Laxton, Bob
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lepper, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Levitt, Tom
Sawford, Phil


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheerman, Barry


Linton, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Love, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe &amp; Lunesdale)


Macdonald, Calum



McDonnell, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


MacShane, Denis
Southworth, Ms Helen


McWalter, Tony
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWilliam, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mallaber, Judy
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meale, Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan



Miller, Andrew
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mitchell, Austin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moffatt, Laura
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tipping, Paddy


Motley, Elliot
Todd, Mark


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon


Mountford, Kali
Truswell, Paul


Mudie, George
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Tynan, Bill


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Ms Joan


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wareing, Robert N


Palmer, Dr Nick
Watts, David


Pearson, Ian
White, Brian


Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Perham, Ms Linda
Wicks, Malcolm


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pike, Peter L







Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wray, James


Wilson, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winnick, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wyatt, Derek


Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodward, Shaun
Mr. Mike Hall and


Woolas, Phil
Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Allan: I want to follow up a point that was made when we considered amendments Nos. 77 and 78 about whether data derived from the register can be disclosed to a third party. Political parties currently process data and create delivery lists that state, for example, that a road contains 40 houses, of which the even numbers are two to 20 and the odd numbers are one to 21. That data is used for our purposes and passed on to charities, which use it as a free source of information for their collectors. It is not used for direct access to individuals; it is simply a free source of useful data. The Minister said earlier that he did not understand why the amendments had been tabled, so I have tried to explain. Can he confirm that we will be able to continue to use the data within the regulations? I emphasise that we provide only information that has been derived from the register. Does he support that?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks me the same question as Bill Powell from Atherstone in my constituency. He is also a Liberal Democrat. As I have told him and the Committee, the proposal deserves a sympathetic response. We can deal with the matter through regulations. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it should be permitted to pass on essentially statistical information to charities. I have sympathy for that approach and I believe that we can find ways in which to achieve that. I hope that the matter can be tackled later through regulations and that I shall be able to satisfy him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

PILOT SCHEMES

Mr. Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 11, line 37, at end insert—
(1A) No local authority shall submit a scheme to the Secretary of State unless it has consulted with electors and other interested persons in its area on the scheme for a period of at least 28 days prior to the submission of the scheme, and the authority shall submit to the Secretary of State any responses received during the consultation period.
(1B) No local authority shall submit a scheme to the Secretary of State unless the scheme has been approved by a meeting of the authority, with at least two—thirds of the members present and voting being in favour of the submission of the scheme to the Secretary of State.".
The clause could lead to the most fundamental change for many years in the way in which we vote. We join the Minister in his desire, about which he spoke yesterday, to preserve the integrity of the voting system. The provision

deals with the way in which local authorities will submit plans for pilot projects for new forms of voting or counting votes—or both—in their areas or parts of their areas at local elections in England and Wales.
Turnouts at local elections are derisory in parts of this country. There is a crisis of democracy in local elections. However, I suspect that the changes that we are considering today will only partially correct the decline. More needs to be done to tackle the real reasons for voter apathy. Statistics show that, in metropolitan boroughs, the turnout declined from 33 per cent. in 1973 to 26 per cent. last year, and from 40 per cent. to 37 per cent. in the English districts during the same period. In only three years, the English unitary authorities have seen a decline in voting to less than one third of the electorate.

Mr. Forth: I hope that, as my hon. Friend develops his argument, he will elaborate on whether he believes that people do not vote at the moment because it is inconvenient or difficult for them to get to the polling station, because they are positively abstaining, or because they simply cannot be bothered. The analysis of the reasons for differing turnouts is crucial to deciding whether the clause is valid.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that intervention. As I said earlier, the decline in voting is due to several reasons. The changes that we make today may alter the turnout at local elections only slightly. The Government are examining why people do not vote in local government elections. I believe that people get frustrated when they vote for their local councillors who vote against planning applications only for the local authority's decision to be overturned by an inspector from Bristol, against the democratic wishes of the people who voted for the councillors. At the last local elections, at least one elector told me that that was the specific reason for her decision not to vote. There are several reasons for abstaining, including positive abstention and apathy. The Bill will at least remove one of the obstacles that prevents people from voting at local elections.

Mr. John Bercow: While we are considering pilot schemes and consultation, is not it a good idea for the Committee to embolden itself to demand a proper restoration of the powers of self-government, even if only as a pilot scheme, to maximise participation—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sure that the Committee has no difficulty in emboldening itself. However, we might astonish ourselves by sticking to the amendment.

Mr. Evans: Yesterday, I treated the Committee to a resume of my dismal results at parliamentary elections. Today, I can correct that by relating some of my local government election results, which are slightly better than my parliamentary results—a 50 per cent. success rate. I do not blame electoral procedures for my derisory results. In the United Kingdom, we are all used to voting in local elections on Thursdays between 8 am and 9 pm, and using a pencil on a piece of paper at a prescribed polling station, which is usually a school. The ballot


papers are pooled in a given place and counted manually. A winner—increasingly, a Conservative—is announced, and thus elected as a councillor.
The clause provides for changes to the system that are potentially wide ranging. Amendment No. 26 would ensure that the pilot schemes not only had the consent of the Home Secretary but that they had been fully considered and that local people had been fully consulted. We are in favour of the pilot schemes, but we have reservations about some of the suggestions for them. We support sensible suggestions for making voting easier. However, I stress that we must be careful not to facilitate fraudulent voting.
The changes could lead to ballot boxes being taken to places of work—completely outside polling stations. They could also be taken to remote areas where only a few people live and a polling station would not usually be manned. When I was in Australia more than a year ago, we stopped at a small place called Paralchino, where only 11 people live. The ballot box is taken to them, they vote and the ballot box is taken away. One of the pilot schemes may be run along those lines.
Ballot boxes could be taken from polling stations to residential or nursing homes, where we know there are specific problems in enabling elderly people to vote. It has been suggested that polling booths might be placed in supermarkets so that people are able to vote while shopping. Voting hours could also be further extended from those I have mentioned, or the number of days over which a poll takes place could be increased to two or perhaps even three or more. One suggestion is that all-postal ballots might, in certain places, replace the traditional polling booth. The pencil could be replaced by electronic voting—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is all very interesting, but the amendment is specific and relates to pilot schemes.

Mr. Evans: Yes, Mrs. Dunwoody. I am discussing the variety of pilot schemes and the fundamental changes that they will achieve. The Secretary of State will be given powers and, once schemes have taken place, will be able to introduce those changes throughout the country at general, European and a number of other elections. Those fundamental changes will be tested in the pilots and we want to make absolutely certain that they are tested properly within the local authority areas, that local authorities consult fully with the people in their areas over 28 days and that, as proposed new subsection (1B) states, a scheme has "at least two-thirds" support in the authority.
The White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People" states:
The Government must safeguard the integrity of elections and ensure that any experiments do not lead to an increase in electoral fraud.
That is what we are concerned about. It continues:
Experiments would therefore have to be sanctioned by the Government. In some cases it would work directly with chosen councils to develop the rules for an experiment.
I am sure that the Minister will want to address the anxieties of, for example, the Local Government Association about ensuring that sufficient pilots take place

and that he will take on board the concern that they should have local popular support. Speed is of the essence and I believe that the Government are keen to get the pilots up and running for the local elections.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The amendment concerns consultation and I hope that we shall have a general debate on that, not the pilot schemes.

Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mrs. Dunwoody. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

Mr. Bercow: On consultation and popular opinion, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, would he be kind enough to tell me and the Committee how many representations he has received from constituents in Ribble Valley in support of the principle or practice of such pilot schemes? It is important to demonstrate the degree of public interest.

Mr. Evans: There are elections in Ribble Valley every four years and the next ones will not take place for some time. The pilot schemes will take place this year and next so Ribble Valley will not be involved. Hon. Members will make their own decisions about the popular support for the schemes, but I support the Government's intention to widen the franchise, which is why we need to ensure that voting is made easier. At the same time, fraudulent voting must not be made easier, which is why we are asking the Secretary of State, through the amendment, to ensure that proper consultation takes place with local people.

Mr. Mark Fisher: May I help the hon. Gentleman? Was he suggesting no representations—a nil return? Is that what he was trying to say?

Mr. Evans: Yes, that is right. A pilot scheme is unlikely to take place in my area because there will not be elections for at least another two years, which is why I would not expect the people of Ribble Valley to write to me asking for one. None the less, elections will take place in May in more than 150 local authority areas and may be taking place in the hon. Gentleman's area.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I have not received a single inquiry along those lines, and I rather doubt that any other Member of the House has.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Those are important points that can be made on clause stand part. We are talking about consultation and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is about to return to it.

Mr. Evans: The points that have been drawn out by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) reinforce our amendment. We are asking that the local authorities consult positively with people in their areas. When we discussed amendments concerning reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 I said that I had received no


letters from constituents on that matter, but I was told that that did not really matter and that what was right was important. Making it easier for people to vote is right, but we must achieve that in such a way that we are not making it easier for people to vote fraudulently.
I hope that the Minister takes on board the fact that we are seeking a consensus on the pilots. We can achieve that by ensuring that the local authorities, at least 28 days before the pilots are submitted to the Secretary of State, positively seek the opinions of the people and organisations in their areas on the suggestions that they are making. In respect of proposed new subsection (1B), we are seeking the same sort of consensus that there is on the changes. Local authorities would have to hold a vote. We are seeking two-thirds approval for a pilot submitted by an authority to the Secretary of State, which would clearly show that there was a consensus in that authority.
We appreciate that the changes that could result from the pilot schemes might be fundamental. Indeed, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) himself talked about the "wide-ranging powers" that would be conferred on the Secretary of State, saying that
we have become rather used to those with this rather autocratic Government".—[Official Report, 4 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 553.]
We ought to be more concerned about that. I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that, although he may not be able to accept our amendment, he will at least look at it again to ensure that we achieve proper consensus on the pilots.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am most grateful to be called to speak on this matter and I hope to be brief. I know that you, Mrs. Dunwoody, will put me in my place immediately if I stray too far into general principles.
I understand fully that one of the evils to be remedied is fraudulent voting, but the other matter about which one has to be cautious is the politically motivated stationing of polling booths or mechanisms for attracting voters that will favour one party or faction as opposed to another. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned the possibility of siting a polling station by a factory, but local people would know very well that siting a polling station by factory A may produce a different result from siting one outside stockbroker office B. Placing a polling booth by a certain railway station would produce a different equation from placing it by another station. I hope, therefore, that local authorities will consult not 28 days before submitting a scheme, but way before. I should have thought that any responsible local authority would take soundings well in advance of publishing a scheme.
There is a second aspect to the amendment, which concerns a two-thirds majority being obtained at the local district council meeting. Surely such a provision would virtually block any progress on a pilot scheme, except in authorities where there was an overwhelming majority. Even the events that are occurring now are leading to different political consequences in polling stations; it would be very surprising if a two-thirds majority on councils that were controlled overwhelmingly by one party led to a consensus.
I cannot support the amendment in its present form, but I hope that the spirit of consultation, and of soundings before the implementation of the scheme, will be adopted by all responsible local authorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment in general terms, but I think it important for us to ensure that proper consultation takes place before pilot schemes are adopted. If we are to engage people in the democratic process and ensure that those people think that our measures are not gimmicks but are for real, we must be certain that the water has been tested.
Let me share with the Committee an experience that I still have far too often, and find very frustrating. I hear of proposals from local authority officers which, before any consultation has taken place, have been presented to the public. Although the proposals have come from their own officers, councils often are not told the details, and Members of Parliament frequently are not consulted.
There ought to be a process to deal with that. I welcome the idea of a pilot scheme, and I know that the Minister is aware that I have a positive approach to the Bill as a whole; but I think it important for enough people to have been consulted to give the idea some credibility and credence. It should not be seen as the whim of someone who has had a wheeze of an idea. If we are to modernise and update the system, we do not want to experience lots of failures. When the pilots have happened, we shall not want to hear that no one voted and that it was not a good idea.
The general purpose of the amendment is that ideas should be presented on the basis of popular support, that those ideas should be tested and that they should then be validated.

Mr. Grieve: Consultation with local authorities is highly variable. It can range from what could be described as full consultation to consultation in circumstances that have often led me to believe that the consultation has been stage-managed with the aim of achieving the desired results. Is not that an argument for also introducing a mechanism to ensure that, at council level, such changes cannot be implemented without more than a 50:50 consensus?

Mr. Hughes: I am sympathetic to that point. The genesis of the Bill lay in a working party in which the Government tried, entirely reasonably, to achieve consensus. The Bill resulted from the consensus that was achieved; proposals that did not achieve consensus are not in the Bill, because they merit a different process.
I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Specifically, I want all local councils and parties to be consulted as a matter of course. The hon. Gentleman's constituency contains a district authority and a county authority. I believe that, in areas where that is the case, both tiers should be consulted. In fact, I think that there should be only one authority, and that Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament should be involved automatically.
Guarantees should be included in the Bill. There should be certainty about the process: for instance, a minimum time should be specified for consultation. The other day, a consultation in London began on 15 December, with a closing date of 4 January. The consultation dealt with a Government proposal about expenses for the mayor of London. It was hardly geared to maximise public


participation and response; indeed, some of us were sceptical about the idea that the aim had been maximum public participation.
Guarantees are needed. We have all been victims of consultations that have started on 31 July when the deadline has been 6 September. I do not want to labour the point, but I think that the general view is that the Minister should reassure us that either the law or secondary legislation—regulations—will deliver what we want.

Mr. Forth: I do not agree with the thrust of this part of the Bill, and I regret to say that I do not share the enthusiasm expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
I am slightly reassured by the fact that the wording of the clause that the amendment is intended to alter provides a safeguard before we rush headlong into unnecessary change, but I will keep most of what I want to say in reserve for the stand part debate, which an earlier occupant of the Chair suggested would be appropriate for wider discussion.
As I understand it, nothing can happen unless or until the relevant local authorities have submitted proposals to the Secretary of State. That is useful from my point of view, because I suspect that it will mean that nothing will happen at all in many parts of the country, which I think is a very good thing—I see no reason for these changes. The proposals would then have to be approved by the Secretary of State. I suppose that they might be defective, and the Secretary of State might see fit not to approve them, so there is another possible safeguard there. The Secretary of State would then make an order, and so on.
There is a certain safeguard against what I regard as unnecessary change in any case. I believe that voting is entirely practicable now for citizens who wish to cast their votes, and that there is no need for extraordinary or even bizarre measures to induce people to vote.
I consider the amendment to be defective in a number of ways. I am very unhappy about new section (1A). As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has pointed out, it makes a vague reference to consultation with electors. I consider the changes envisaged in the Bill and, indeed, in the amendment to be so fundamental and so radical as to require much more support and reassurance than is provided by consultation with electors, in the loose sense in which it is proposed in the amendment. Surely it should be demonstrated that a significant proportion of voters in an area are enthusiastic about the idea of pilot schemes that will begin to change something as fundamental to our democratic process as our electoral system, rather than mere consultation.
We all know—those of us who were in government until two and a half years ago, and those of us who are now in government—how variable the consultation process can be. We know how meaningful and, indeed, how meaningless it can be. I am sorry to say this to my colleagues who have signed the amendment, but I do not believe that the proposed approach to consultation provides anything like the reassurance that should enable us to embark on changes as radical as those proposed in the Bill.
I am, however, more reassured by what is proposed in the proposed new subsection (1B). I am reassured by the higher hurdle involved. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) suggested that the hurdle was too high; I consider it to be appropriately high. I think that our electorate will be reassured if we require visible, palpable, substantial support before taking these steps towards change. I think that the proposed subsection (1B) gives that, but that subsection (1A) falls short of what is required.
I am in a dilemma about the amendment. I do not support clause 10 but I shall return to that later. I would like to support subsection (1B), but I am very unhappy about subsection (1A). I suppose the only conclusion I can draw is that, as it goes further in the direction that I would like from the original wording, I am prepared to support it on that basis. I believe, however, that we need far more safeguards and reassurances before plunging headlong down the path proposed in clause 10.

Mr. David Maclean: I support the amendment merely because it makes a bad clause slightly better. I am genuinely concerned about clause 10, which has the potential to create a right shambles throughout the country as different authorities produce different ideas on voting and present different schemes to the Secretary of State.
With the best will in the world, how will the Home Office know whether a proposal by X authority in some part of the country is properly thought out, properly workable, fair and will not lead to a polling booth being situated outside a factory that employs, say, 500 people? It may sound eminently sensible, but it may stack the voting in the ward one way. If the mobile polling station were put outside a school where mothers pick up children in a different part of the ward, there might be a totally different result.
Therefore, there are grave dangers in allowing local authorities to come up with their own ideas and schemes on how to increase votes in their area. They may not be widening the franchise generally, but be planning to stack votes in favour of a particular party in a local authority area.
It is not good enough for the Bill to say that the scheme must be approved by the Secretary of State. If local authorities have written the scheme cleverly and put in all the correct buzz words and phrases about fair and impartial voting, the Home Office will not spot it, unless it gets a big staff increase and can go around every local authority area to check in detail its proposals for mobile voting, or for whatever local quirk that they wish to introduce. That is my worry about the Bill.
If the Government want to increase voting opportunities by putting polling stations in shops, supermarkets and, in that case, rural post offices—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about various pilot schemes and new systems. The amendment deals with consultation and approval. I should be grateful if he would stick to that.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for the reminder, Mr. Lord. I was trying to set the scene and to say why, if the Government were to create a hotchpotch of systems


throughout the country, consultation before local authorities sent a scheme to the Home Office would be vital.
There is only one safeguard in the Bill: after a local authority comes up with a scheme, the rest of the electorate have to depend on the Home Office and the Secretary of State to say, "No, that is a bit dodgy. We do not like it. The proposals are faulty. We will send them back and reject it." The amendment suggests that there must be widespread consultation locally. It could identify difficult, bogus, fraudulent schemes, and schemes that have not been properly thought out, or may be politically biased.
I do not think that any hon. Member would trust every local authority to come up with foolproof schemes without some bias. There are about 400 local authorities. With the best will in the world, some of them, somewhere, will make mistakes. The schemes of some may be politically motivated. The amendment proposes consultation. That may identify to local people what the authority is up to and prevent some dodgy schemes being presented to the Secretary of State as if they were all legitimate and above board.
I support the proposal for two-thirds majority votes, although I am not generally in favour of them; I believe that, on most occasions, a simple majority is sufficient. However, in view of the way in which the Government are, in some ways, putting the cart before the horse with their proposals, I favour subsection (1B) and two-thirds majority voting.
I would have preferred it if the Government, in going down the route of having lots of different schemes throughout the country for different systems of voting, had put into the Bill clear principles and guidelines on how it should be done, a list and schedule of appropriate places and the safeguards to be built in. They could then have invited local authorities to produce proposals that met those guidelines and criteria. In those circumstances, I would have been happier, but, as the Government have gone down the route of inviting local authorities to invent any scheme that they wish, with the Home Office then arbitrating, it is vital both to have widespread consultation locally and to ensure that there is a public vote in the local authority, with a two-thirds majority. In that way, we can be assured that the majority of elected representatives locally are happy with the proposals that are sent to the Home Office.

Mr. Grieve: When the scheme first came before the House on Second Reading, I broadly supported it. It was one of the clauses that I thought was fairly creative. I thought that because I accept that there are ways in which our voting methods may be improved, but, picking up the points that have already been made—I do not want to repeat, or to labour, them too much—the merit of the present system is that it is essentially completely depoliticised.
Looking back over what is now, I suppose, 20 years of involvement in local politics before even becoming a Member of Parliament, I can think of no occasion when the siting of polling stations, for example, was a contentious issue. The whole thing is so enshrined in the tradition that it is handled simply by the chief executive's department in the local authority. In my experience, it has not been questioned.
There must be some anxiety that, if we embark on an action that encourages local authorities, at what is essentially a political level, to come up with pilot schemes on how voting may be improved, there will be ulterior motives, as was touched on by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). That causes me concern. I leave aside whether moving the polling station to a new location that appears to favour one party or another will lead to a different result. The provision may mean that what has never been questioned will suddenly be questioned. I can foresee that, on the Floor of the House, Members will say to Home Office Ministers that there is gerrymandering of polling station sitings, for example. When I considered the matter on Second Reading, that did not hit me in the face. It was only when I reflected on it afterwards that I could see the dangers inherent in such a change.
I do not want to pull the rug from under any change because I accept, as I said on Second Reading, that innovatory ideas may be beneficial, but we need to be careful because, as we know, there are local authorities throughout the country, not necessarily represented by one political party, whose motives are often questioned. Those will precisely be the places where most questions will be asked about any changes. It is vital, therefore, that some local consensus should be achieved.
As I told the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), local authority consultations are variable things, and some of them are scandalous. It is not unusual to have a local authority consultation in which, notwithstanding the fact that a majority of individuals have expressed view A, the local authority—by use of some extraordinary, creative statistics—nevertheless decides that its idea, which was in favour of view B, should still be given a go. The Home Secretary will then have to make various difficult decisions, and politicise what had previously been a non-political process.
I should be interested to hear from any other hon. Member in the debate whether, hitherto, the siting of polling stations in their constituencies—which tends to be long-established in local schools—has caused major political problems. I cannot think of any examples of that happening, but I should be interested to hear whether it has.
The proposal might open Pandora's box.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I are far apart in our general views on the issue. However, proper consultation on the fairly limited issue of polling stations is necessary when one is told categorically, "We must have a polling station for each polling district," although the logical and cost-effective place for those people—in district A—to vote is just across the road, in district B, where most of them live. There are important issues to address.
I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman that general ground rules on minimum consultation time and on informing people should be established and not left entirely—with no checking or authorisation—to local authority discretion.

Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I also support amendment No. 26. It is not perfect—various flaws have been identified—but perfection in the matter cannot be achieved.
Clause 10, as drafted, worries me. The last thing that I want is, in four or five years, the House being dominated at Question Time or at other times by arguments over alleged gerrymandering as a consequence of changes to something that had previously been accepted, without question and without anxiety, as a matter of routine. It is not a matter simply of improving, but of public perception.
The issue is non-contentious, but we are possibly about to make it contentious, and that does not seem to be particularly desirable. Let us ensure that the benefits that may come out of the proposal—possibly, for example, different voting hours or ways of casting a vote—are not clouded by the politicisation of a process that has hitherto been non-political.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I am pleased to tell the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that I have some sympathy with the first half of amendment No. 26. My support for the amendment is probably—and appropriately—in direct proportion to the opposition to it expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Clearly, it would be undesirable if local authorities were to operate pilot schemes that were contrary to, or out of tune with, the wishes of the local electorate. However, for reasons that I shall explain in a moment, including in the legislation an explicit requirement to consult seems unnecessary. When any pilot scheme is being considered or designed, and given certain guarantees and conditions, we have to trust local elected representatives to be aware of, and to represent—that is why they are elected—the interests of those who elect them.
My colleagues at the Home Office recently issued one of their regular circulars to local authorities, part of which dealt with the operation of the Bill and the application process for authorities that are interested in operating schemes. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—who not only spoke in the debate, but served at the Home Office in the previous Government—will know that such circulars are issued fairly regularly.
The circular makes it clear that only applications that are well thought out and planned will be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In deciding which schemes meet those criteria, he will be looking for evidence that the application commands the confidence and support of local people. If he feels that a scheme is inappropriate and would not command the local population's sympathy, he would automatically rule it to be inappropriate. An application to run a pilot scheme that obviously does not have the support of local people would, in those circumstances, have little or no chance of being successful.
We should leave it to local authorities to decide how to meet the requirement. They might want to engage in formal consultation over 28 days or some other period; they might want to send people knocking on doors; or they might want to place articles in local papers and invite comments on them. It is for each local authority to consider the best way of advertising and receiving views

on their proposals. I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley accepts that consultation will be integral to any pilot scheme, so there should be no need for the first part of his amendment, although the principle behind it is good.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) touched on issues relating to the location of polling stations and the effect that it could have on the outcome of an election. Local authorities already have the power to designate polling stations, and an appeals mechanism can be invoked by electors who believe that the local authority has failed to exercise that duty properly. The Bill does not change that. If there are suspicions of mischief or gerrymandering—a word that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield used, perhaps in the heat of the moment—it is open to any elector, including members of political parties who feel that the situation is disadvantaging a section of the electorate, to appeal against the siting of a polling station.

Mr. Grieve: How often are such complaints made or upheld under the existing rules? My experience is that the process is wholly depoliticised and I am anxious that it should remain so.

Mr. Howarth: I have no global statistics on the number of appeals, but I have experience of it happening. My local party once felt that a mobile polling station was inappropriately sited. On one occasion, we protested about its inaccessibility for people with disabilities. I understand from the global statistics that are available that such appeals are rare, which leads me to believe that the system is probably run fairly.
I stand to be corrected, but I think that it was Winston Churchill who said that a majority of one was enough. That principle has applied at every level of government. I clearly remember the previous Government often surviving perilous situations by one vote. On one occasion, they did not even survive by one vote, but overnight they were able to reverse that. We accept the principle that a simple majority is all that is required for even the most momentous legislation to pass through this House. The same is true in local government. I see no reason to depart from that principle for pilot schemes.
Arguably the most important decision that a local authority takes each year is to set its budget. I speak as a former local authority finance committee chairman. Fortunately, on Knowsley council the majority in the vote on the budget was never likely to be as small as one. That is in the nature of the psephology of the situation. If I had ever had to get the budget through by one vote, that would have been enough. Why should we treat pilot schemes any differently?
5 pm
I want to draw attention to the criteria that local authorities might be expected to consider when proposing schemes as they might be relevant in respect of consultation. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer hon. Members to Home Office RPA circular 430. I am assured that a copy was sent to the


Opposition parties, although I do not know whether it has filtered down to the relevant spokesmen. Paragraph 31 of the document states:
An application to run a pilot scheme must be made to the Home Secretary and must include the following information".
It then lists 11 pieces of information. I shall read out the last two.
Sub-paragraph 10 states:
Details of the arrangements that will be made to evaluate the pilot scheme".
It will be the responsibility of the local authority operating each individual pilot scheme to submit an evaluation of the effect of the scheme. It will obviously include such factors as turnout. If a pilot scheme operated in a way that was unexpected or unfair, that should feature in the evaluation. So those who are concerned about any mischief being made should accept the professionalism of electoral registration officers and others involved in elections in submitting an objective and honest evaluation of the pilot schemes.
Sub-paragraph 11 states:
An assurance that no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation, that the opportunities for fraud will not be enhanced and that the secrecy of the poll will be maintained.
There are other requirements involving such details as the name and the minutes of the council approving the scheme, so I shall not go through them exhaustively.
I hope that the circular, the process in which it involves local authorities and the fact that they need to evaluate any pilot scheme objectively and inform the Home Office of its outcome will assure the Committee that, although the amendments provided the opportunity for a useful debate, they are not necessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel it in his power to withdraw them.

Mr. Evans: This has been a useful debate on two major issues: consultation and the pilot schemes. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, consultation can be defined in many ways. That is why the amendment is prescriptive and proposes that consultation should continue for at least 28 days.
I was a local councillor in opposition in West Glamorgan. The local authority had to consult widely before setting its budget. It seemed to be a matter of getting the businesses in and letting them have their say before jacking up the rates to tremendous levels. At least the authority could argue that local businesses had been consulted. We are looking for meaningful consultation on these changes. The pilot schemes represent a major constitutional change affecting voting. Local authorities are not the only ones who are guilty of poor consultation; so were the present Government and past Government in various respects.
The second part of the amendment, concerning thresholds, relates to clause 11, which transfers enormous powers to the Home Secretary. Once clause 10 has been implemented and the pilots have been approved, the Secretary of State can introduce those changes throughout the country. General election results could change on the basis of what might happen in the pilots described in clause 10. We therefore want to make certain that the pilots are subject to proper consultation and that

consensus is achieved in the local authority area, to be demonstrated by a vote in favour by two thirds of the local authority councillors present and voting.
I also hope that the Home Secretary will feel able to publish the results of the pilot schemes, so that we have an opportunity to see exactly what is intended and where, and can make our own judgments.

Mr. George Howarth: I can confirm that the Home Secretary intends to publish the results.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that assurance, because we will all take a keen interest in the progress of the pilot schemes and how they are evaluated in different areas. I understand that local authorities are already consulting on pilot schemes to be put forward to the Home Secretary for the May 2000 elections. The time scale will be very tight, even though consideration of the Bill is proceeding apace here and in the other place. We want to be sure that the consultation will be thorough, so we will wish to ensure before proceedings are concluded that all local authorities will be well aware that the Home Secretary will examine all pilot projects to see what consultation took place before the proposals were submitted. However, I know that the Minister is not keen to see that requirement included in the Bill. With the assurances he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
'(2A) Where a scheme under this section makes provision for voting in a particular election to take place on more than one day, it shall be an offence for any person to make public, at any time before all voting in the election concerned has been completed, information which indicates or purports to indicate the way in which two or more persons have cast their votes in that election.
(2B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) of this section is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding Level 5 on the Standard Scale, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.'.
We aim to ensure the integrity of the ballot, and our amendment would prevent the publication of any exit poll that could affect the outcome of an election. Let us suppose that an election were to be held over two days, as the pilot schemes could allow. On the first day, exit polls could be conducted by various organisations for their own purposes, including media of all types, and the results could be published at the end of the day. If those polls indicated a trend in the voting, they could influence the final result.
We have all experienced the way in which the Liberal Democrats conduct their own polls during elections and publish the results in leaflets that claim that they are closing the gap on the party in first place. They do that to try to influence the outcome of the vote. We do not seek to prevent such skulduggery, but we do wish to prevent exit polls that arise from actual voting. We have information from the Library about other countries that have banned polling for various periods before elections take place. France is one of the best examples, because it has banned polling for two weeks while elections take place over two Sundays.
Polls can be suspect at the best of times and I am sure that we all remember warmly the uselessness of the exit polling in the 1992 general election. If the exit poll had


been released before the voting had finished, people might have been induced to vote differently because of what they perceived the possible result to be. The amendment would ensure that bogus exit polls—and even accurate ones—would play no part in the election process. We want people to vote on the issues of the campaign, not on inside information.

Mr. Maclean: This is another amendment that attempts to tighten up a piece of nonsense in the Bill. The idea that we need to allow more than one day for voting in local authority elections is preposterous. Polling stations are open for a minimum of 14 hours for local government elections. A 30 per cent. turnout is achieved, at the expense of great disruption to schools, especially primary schools, which lose a day of lessons because they are open for electoral purposes.

Mr. George Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman may know that the Home Office often receives representations from people who are called away on urgent business on the day of an election. There is no opportunity for them to cast a vote, as they do not have time to apply for postal votes or proxy votes. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that reasonable?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not debating whether there should be voting on one or more days. We are debating whether, if there is voting on one or more days, there should be exit polls.

Mr. Maclean: That is it exactly, Mr. Lord. To answer the Minister, I shall have to return to the matter in the clause stand part debate. It is very easy for people to get a postal vote these days if they anticipate that they may be called away. People can get a postal vote automatically for lots of reasons these days, whether or not they intend to be away on the day of an election.
The amendment would improve slightly what is a nonsense in the Bill. I do not believe that exit polls, or opinion polls in general, should be banned. In countries where that has been tried, secret party polls and other information are still available days in advance and can influence voters. The Government propose that polling stations should be open for two days in a bid to raise turnout from 30 per cent. to 31 per cent. That is nonsense: it is dead easy to vote, but 70 per cent. of the public cannot be bothered. However, if the aim is to get those idle people out to vote, we need to adopt the proposal in the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not have share the strident opinion of the electorate expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I believe that anything that might increase election turnout is worth experimenting with.
I support the idea that the process should be regulated. In America, polls close on one coast long before they do on the other coast. The influence exerted by Vermont on California—if I have got that the right way around—is always an issue.

Mr. Forth: What about Hawaii?

Mr. Hughes: We must not forget Hawaii, of course. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will answer a

question about postal votes. They are often counted earlier than those cast in the ballot box, although they can be submitted right up until the polls close. However, if we are to regulate as proposed in the amendment, we must cover the relatively small number of votes counted and attested before the main count.
Perhaps the answer should be that, regardless of how early votes are cast, no counting is begun until all votes are in. Before the count starts, we would need to ensure that only a verification exercise was undertaken, not a counting exercise. It would not be helpful if a survey of those who voted in the first two days of an election showed that one party was 50 per cent. ahead. That would influence the result, and I hope that the Committee would not support that proposition.

Mr. Forth: I echo the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), but in a slightly different way. The mere fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has tabled the amendment and that we have had this debate illustrates the difficulties inherent in this section of the Bill. If we were not having to debate the nonsense of spreading voting over a period of time or, as we shall come to, a number of different places, we would not have to consider safeguards.
5.15 pm
One of the beauties—the elegance, the simplicity—of our long-established electoral arrangements is that they are familiar. That in itself undermines the argument that somehow it is difficult to vote and that we should make it easier. However, what is perhaps even more important in the context of this amendment is that the simplicity, elegance and transparency of our existing arrangements makes them, if not foolproof, then proof against the kind of dangers that previous speakers have described. That should act as yet another warning signal that we are treading a dangerous path. We are proposing tinkering and experimenting with long-standing established arrangements in something as fundamental and crucial as our electoral process and voting procedures. That should give us pause for thought and, perhaps, should discourage us from proceeding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has identified this danger, for which I praise him. However, I believe that a measure such as this is essential to prevent abuse of the new processes on which we may now be embarking. If local authorities, having jumped the hurdles that we discussed, go down this route, it will be incumbent on us to anticipate any difficulties that may arise and eliminate or reduce them as far as possible. However, the mere fact that we are worrying about safeguards illustrates the dangers of what is being proposed.
I support my hon. Friend's amendment, and will come back to the other matters on clause stand part.

Mr. George Howarth: I shall be brief, and hope that I can satisfy the Committee. When he moved the amendment, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to bogus polls.

Mr. Evans: Some bogus polls.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed. I draw the Committee's attention to a poll that was published by the Liberal Democrats in my constituency prior to the 1997 general election.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Your friends.

Mr. Howarth: My friends indeed. The poll told the electors, who I think had more sense than to take any notice, that my majority was on a knife edge, and that the Liberal Democrat candidate would be likely to displace me come polling day. I am glad to say that they were wrong—I had a majority of more than 26,000 votes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I always warn my colleagues about the dangers of exaggeration.

Mr. Howarth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives that advice, but I note that he does not always take it himself.
I am attracted by the arguments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. My colleagues at the Home Office are minded, given his agreement to withdraw the amendment, to take the issue away and look at it. There is some potential for distorting the outcome of an election in these circumstances. The amendment contains a sensible principle, and we need to address it. I also give an undertaking to address the point that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised about postal votes.

Mr. Evans: I am encouraged by what the Minister said. I am not persuaded by double-day voting, but the reality of the pilot is that some may be introduced. In that case, we need to ensure that there are safeguards. I am more persuaded by the proposal of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), which we shall debate later, to make the cut-off dates in respect of matters such as postal voting far shorter, therefore obviating the need for the expensive double-voting procedures.
In the light of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
(2C) Where a scheme under this section makes provision for voting in a particular election to take place on more than one day or to take place at places other than polling stations, any person voting in the election concerned shall be required, as a condition of voting, to produce at the place of voting at least one item of documentary evidence of that person's identity.
(2D) The items of documentary evidence required for the purposes of subsection (2C) of this section shall be any of—

(a) a valid United Kingdom passport;
(b) a valid United Kingdom driving licence;
(c) a printed statement from a bank or building society authorised to do business in the United Kingdom dated not more than 28 days before the day on which voting in the election commences;
(d) a copy of any of the foregoing certified by a commissioner for oaths,

or such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer concerned constitute sufficient evidence of the identity of the person referred to in subsection (2C) of this section.".

The amendment is consequential on voting taking place over more than one day or in more than one polling station. It is a common-sense measure that will help to reduce the incidence of fraudulent voting, at a time when we want to simplify the voting system.
Yesterday, we held a good debate on proofs of identity when making declarations of locality. The amendment builds on that. We heard that personation is a reality, although we do not know the exact rate at which it occurs. I hope that the Government will carry out a study of that matter as soon as possible. In evaluating the pilots, local authorities could compare personation before and during the pilots. In any event, some work must be undertaken.
In making voting easier, we want to ensure that the integrity of the vote is preserved. Currently, anyone can stroll up to a polling station and state who they are. They need no proof; they do not need to show documentation or a polling card. Amendment No. 19 provides that voters should give some proof of identification when the vote is stretched over several days or when they are not voting in their normal polling station. We have not asked for especially onerous proofs; they would be required only at elections that are different from the norm. The amendment would allow electoral registration officers great flexibility; they could accept many different proofs of identity before giving out the ballot paper.
I hope that when the Minister responds to this simple, common-sense measure, he will be able to tell the Committee that in those pilots that deviate from the norm, the rest of the electorate will be assured that there will be safeguards to ensure that personation will not increase.

Mr. Hurst: First, I should declare an interest, because the purport of the amendment—at least in part—is to enrich those of us commissioned to administer oaths. I so make that declaration. Notwithstanding that enticement, I oppose the amendment on the following grounds.
I am uncertain whether the Bill contains a definition of the words "polling station". I take it that, if one voted in a booth or a box in a supermarket, for the purpose of the election, that would be a polling station. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), there may be some defects in the drafting of the amendment, if the evil that he seeks to remedy is to be addressed.
The substance of the amendment deals with the production of documentation. In other debates on other amendments, the question of identity cards has been raised. I am a great supporter of identity cards—among a growing number of such supporters—but we do not have them at present. People with some experience of elections will know that it is not always possible for voters to find their polling cards, especially as local authorities now take it upon themselves to send out polling cards weeks ahead of an election. We might consider the effect on local government turnout if the only official notification of the election is a polling card sent out six weeks before.
At present, people can vote without any proof of identity at all. I suspect that no one in this place has not told a voter, "Don't worry, you don't need anything to vote. Just tell them who you are and where you live." All of a sudden, it will become much more difficult; one will have to produce a passport—many people do not have passports. One will have to produce a driving licence—


that discriminates against those who do not drive. One will have to produce a printed statement from a bank or building society. By golly, that would be quite a task.
When collecting electors in a car, we will have to say, "You can't possibly come yet, Mrs. Jones, because you do not have all the documentation to satisfy them that you are who we know you are." If the amendment were accepted, we should place a great burden on the registration officer or the polling clerk at the polling station. Many arguments would ensue about whether a particular document was good enough evidence, or whether the written statement of the car driver who picked up electors from a certain address was a document sufficient to justify them being able to vote at that polling station.
Most pernicious of all, the documentary addition to voting is discriminatory against the poor, almost certainly discriminatory against the elderly and certainly discriminatory against those who live some distance from a polling station, in that if they leave the documents behind, they are unlikely to go back and get them.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is making more of this than it is worth. We are asking for only one piece of documentation, and the amendment does provide for a lot of examples. There can be few people who would not be able to produce something with their name and address on it to show to the person giving out the ballot papers that they were who they said they were and lived where they said they lived.

Mr. Hurst: At present, that is not the position. I understood that the purpose of the Bill was to increase voting. If we are going to introduce documentary hurdles that people must jump over to poll, damage will ensue.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is trying to address. He wants to avoid people voting at their own polling station, and then traipsing down to Tesco, Sainsbury or wherever the hordes of democracy will hereafter reside and casting a second vote. However, with the wonders of the computer age and the amounts of money that public bodies spend on computerised systems, I would have thought it possible for computers in the polling stations or booths to be able to cross-check within the system who has already voted. If so, the need for documentary evidence is superfluous, and should be strongly resisted.

Mr. Forth: I am somewhat torn on the amendment, and I am puzzled by the implications of the options to vote at different places. If I, as a voter, am able to go to any one of a number of local places to vote—and I can choose from among them—presumably, if I have already voted at one, there must be a mechanism to communicate that fact to all the others to make sure that I do not do it again. In theory, I could go to each one, providing proof of identity, and vote several times over. I am sure that the Minister will reassure me that that has been considered.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) that it is unreasonable to ask someone who is to cast their vote for their representative to be able to provide some demonstration of their identity. That is asked for in many other daily transactions, and the

amendment would make it as easy as possible. However, I am not sure that the list would fulfil the function that is intended for it. The passport has a picture, but no address. The current driving licence has an address, but no picture. I am not sure what a printed statement from a bank would tell anyone about the person presenting it at a multiple polling station. Also, I share the hon. Gentleman's suspicions in respect of commissioners of oaths.
The amendment raises yet another question—a different example of the phenomenon that we examined in our discussions on the previous amendment. It is becoming ever more apparent that the possibility of loopholes and failures arising increases every time we consider variable times and places of election.
My hon. Friend has diligently moved the amendment and the Minister has equally diligently sought to answer questions and to reassure us about the circulars and so on. I hope that he will tell us, as he said he would, that my worries about multiple voting will be catered for, if not in the way that the amendment suggests. However, the mere fact that we have had to go through that process merely reinforces my suspicion that we are embarking on a dangerous route.
5.30 pm
In spite of the doubts that I have expressed about the amendment, something of its kind will be necessary to reassure us if we start to alter the electoral system. I agree with my hon. Friend about the words in the amendment that refer to
such other document as may in the reasonable opinion of the registration officer constitute sufficient evidence".
That is the good old British solution of deciding what is "reasonable". Surely those words cover most of the objections raised by the hon. Member for Braintree. The reasonable and proper approach is to allow someone wanting and intending to vote to produce reasonable proof of his identity, whatever that proof might be. For Members of Parliament, it could be their parliamentary pass—I do not know, but it would be something like that.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that he and his officials have thought the issue through carefully and that he believes that there will and should be mechanisms in place properly to answer the doubts that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raised.

Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on raising the issue. It is the type of issue that the Committee should consider in its examination of the Bill. When local authorities plan their pilot schemes, it is important that they consider all the issues so that opportunities for personation do not arise.
I understand and sympathise with the concerns about electoral fraud. However, provided that the schemes are properly thought out, I fail to see why early voting or mobile polling stations should give rise to it. I shall explain the reasons for that view, because they are directly relevant to the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
If there is more than one place at which an elector can vote, there must obviously be some link between them to ensure that, once someone has voted in one place, he cannot vote elsewhere. That is precisely the type of issue


that we expect to see dealt with in the applications that are made for pilot schemes. Indeed, fraud was covered in the circular to which I drew attention earlier. If there is no provision for such linkage, it simply would not be feasible to approve a pilot scheme.
The computer technology that is available to many local authorities, although by no means all of them, is sufficient, through modems and a central database on to which the register would be downloaded, to make it possible for someone's vote at a supermarket to be registered on the central database. Therefore, any other opportunity that that person would have to vote would be closed. That is the simple truth of the matter, and we will look for such assurances in the pilot schemes.
With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel able not to press the amendment.

Mr. Evans: This has been another useful debate, and I am grateful for the Minister's response.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned the fact that we, as canvassers and candidates, often tell people not to worry that they do not have their polling cards because they can still vote without them. We stress that point and we do not want to remove that option. However, the amendment deals with a specific pilot project that could be extended. If people are able to vote in more than one polling station—at present, we are allowed to vote only in the one designated for our address—a new problem will be created. We want to deal with that problem by ensuring that more people are able to vote, but not that the same people vote more often at the same election.
From what the Minister said, the schemes that local authorities introduce may require proofs of identity. That may be why he does not want such a provision in the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is a computer expert, but does he agree that if one has, for example, the opportunity to vote at three places in a district—at the primary school, at B&Q and at the supermarket—and all those places have to be linked by modem to a central database or to each other, that would require them to be online continuously for 15 hours, which would involve enormous cost?

Mr. Evans: I totally agree. Perhaps only one polling station would be made available to people other than the one in which they would normally vote. That depends on the pilot schemes.

Mr. George Howarth: To satisfy the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I can say that the eighth point that needs to be considered in any application under the terms of the circular is an indication of the likely additional cost or savings arising from the running of a pilot scheme. That is one of the factors that the Home Secretary will take into account.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Minister.
On proof of identity, in other countries something is done to voters when they vote, such as dyeing their finger or thumb, so that they are unable to vote again. We do not want to do that, and I am sure that the Home Secretary would look askance at any pilot projects that proposed to dye people's fingers after they had voted.
New technology, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) suggested, should at least provide the opportunity for local authorities to come up with pilot schemes, perhaps in alliance with new technology companies which will want to advance a particular technology and demonstrate to the rest of the country that it works. That technology would have to be proven.

Mr. William Ross: I am rather sorry that I missed the beginning of the debate because I am intrigued as to why the Conservative party, in tabling an amendment, did not look at the list of identification documents that it imposed on all electors in Northern Ireland at single polling stations.
Has the hon. Gentleman considered the problems that will arise for political parties that might want to have a presence at every polling point, as is the case with us in Northern Ireland for very good reasons? There are many problems with the idea of a multiplicity of polling points which need to be carefully thought through before we pursue that policy. That system would be wide open to abuse, especially organised abuse such as we experience in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority and experience of the problems that will arise when people are able to vote in more than one place and on more than one day. We shall therefore watch the Bill's progress carefully and note any amendments made in another place or in this place at later stages.
I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns of hon. Members generally that when we move away from single voting days and single polling stations, new problems will arise which need to be solved before elections take place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
(2A) No scheme under this section that makes provision for voting on more than one day shall make provision for voting to take place on any Friday, Saturday or Sunday.".

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in page 12, line 2, at end insert—
(2A) No scheme under this section that makes provision for voting on more than one day shall make provision for voting to take place on more than three days before the day of the poll.".

Mr. Evans: We aim yet again to ensure that voting is made easier, but that due regard is paid to the sensitivities of large groups of people who would feel offended if voting were to take place on key religious days. Amendment No. 24 would rule out voting on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I need not go into further detail on that.
It would be ironic if a measure aimed at increasing voting participation had the reverse effect. The working group considered the matter and, in paragraph 3.18, said:
Pilot schemes would need to take account of the implications for strict religious observation of most faiths of any move from Thursday voting.


I know that the Minister is well aware of that problem.
Amendment No. 25 aims to restrict voting to four days, by stating that voting should occur for no more than three days before the day of the poll. Like colleagues who have already spoken, I am extremely sceptical about extending single-day voting. That is why I shall be listening carefully to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) when he speaks to his amendment No. 86, on postal voting.
I think that we can address most of the problems that will result given the inability of people to get to polling stations because of mobility difficulties and because of the way in which jobs have changed. We know that, all of a sudden, people may be called away in the course of their employment. More readily available postal votes will meet most of these problems. However, if there is a pilot project for voting on more than one day, there must be certain safeguards. To have polling taking place for a few days in one week and a few days in another would be inoperable and unrealistic.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has spoken about the problems of political parties being able to monitor what is taking place. Once we move to polling taking place on more than one day, and perhaps on more than one day in one week, we shall face real problems in allowing political parties to monitor the fair operation of elections. Amendment No. 25 would restrict the number of voting days before polling day.

Mr. Maclean: I do not support amendment No. 24. I believe that extending voting for local government elections beyond more than one day is nonsensical. However, if that is the way in which the Government wish to go, so that there can be voting for two or three days, and they want pilot schemes to that effect, I see no good reason to bar certain days of the week.
If we are to have genuine consultation, as the Minister has suggested, I assume that local authorities in certain areas will not come forward with proposals to have voting on the day of the Jewish sabbath or on a day of any other strict religious observance. Even if there is a second day of voting that falls on a holy day, there is no problem provided that there is one day on either side of it that is not a holy day.
I would be strongly opposed to a proposition that there should be only one day of voting, which could be moved to a Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Such a proposal would understandably cause great offence to those who still have some—

Mr. Hurst: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman recalls that Saturday was commonly the polling day in urban district and rural district elections.

Mr. Maclean: I am perhaps slightly younger than the hon. Gentleman. I have no personal experience of what he says, but I believe that, historically, he is correct.
We have a fairly well-established precedent of Thursday being polling day. That is well known and well understood, but we still have a miserable turnout. That is not because it is difficult to vote. Those who do not vote in local government elections will turn out and vote in

general elections, where the poll will be more than double that in other elections. It is not impossible for people to get to polling stations, and there are not awful difficulties that require two or three days for elections.
It seems that people have taken a different view about the merits of voting in local elections as opposed to general elections. Similarly, they have taken a view about the merits of voting in European elections. That is a route that I do not wish to go down. I merely suggest that, if the Government are minded to proceed with their proposition that there should be two or three days of polling for local government elections—I oppose that—local authorities must surely have the freedom to come up with any two or three days that they like, after proper consultation with local people. I would not rule out Friday, Saturday or Sunday.
I have participated in Sunday shopping debates in this place. We must admit, whether we like it or not, that millions more people go shopping on Sunday than to church. If it is the Government's intention to stick a voting box in every supermarket and every B&Q, it would make sense to have polling stations in the shops while they are open, and that would include a Sunday, with the limited shopping hours of between 10 and 4 o'clock. I am opposed to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and I do not support his amendment, but that does not mean that I support the Government's view on increasing the amount of time during which polling may take place.
5.45 pm
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out to me that it is difficult to see what amendment No. 25 means. I do not want to steal his speech, but he said that the amendment was nonsensical. It refers to multiple voting days, and specifies that voting should not take place
more than three days before the day of the poll.
If voting takes place on two or three days, which is the day of the poll? I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley means the last day of the poll—presumably the Thursday, or perhaps the Sunday.
Nevertheless, there is some sense in saying that, if the Government choose to go down the route of multiple voting days, there must be a cut-off. I think that one day is sufficient. I would grudgingly go to two days at most. Voting over three or four days would be nonsensical in local government elections or any other election. I support the thrust of amendment No. 25, but I would tighten it up.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Let me take the amendments in reverse order. On amendment No. 25, it seems sensible that a limit on the number of days should be built in to the legislation. Reference has been made to a drafting issue. There is also a practical issue for the political parties and those who administer elections. Spreading the elections over more than one day may bring in marginally more voters, but it entails greater expense and more work on the part of the officials, polling station staff, police and political parties. We must draw a line.
Amendment No. 24 refers to pilot schemes. It is right that bids for pilot schemes should come up from the grass roots. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Lord,


on clause 11 and to speak about the position in her part of Scotland, reflecting the fact that there are different views in different parts of the country.
If voting takes place on a Friday, which may make it difficult for members of the Jewish community to vote, a range of dates must be provided to allow everyone with a strict religious view the opportunity to vote. It may be Sunday for some, Saturday for some and Friday for some. If there is to be non-Thursday voting, and voting is to take place over the long weekend, it must take place over the whole period, otherwise difficulties arise. We understand the issue, but I do not take the view that there should be an absolute bar in the legislation to voting on Sundays, Saturdays or Fridays.
Incidentally, I remember the participation of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) as a Minister in the debates on Sunday trading. We are now in the world of Sunday shopping. I am not persuaded that we are the better for it.

Mr. George Howarth: May I express sympathy for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)? I am glad that I have the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) facing me, rather than behind me.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendments, so that we can debate an issue that will be important to a large number of people. We must make sure that we do nothing to harm the interests of those with strong religious faith, especially anything that would prevent them from voting on a particular day of the week.
It is up to local authorities to decide which innovations they want to pilot. As we have already discussed, they are required to submit applications and, in so doing, they will have to consider the needs of all their electors. The guidance to local authorities on how to apply for a pilot scheme, to which I referred earlier, makes that clear. Among the material that a local authority will have to include in its application is an assurance
that no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation".
That is unambiguous.
Clearly, any local authority that wants to try voting on a day other than Thursday will have to consider seriously the religious views of its population. Specific days will be more significant in some areas than in others. I assure the House that the Home Office is conscious of those issues. It is perhaps significant that, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie):
If weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days. There are members of the Jewish community who would not wish to vote on a Saturday and there are members of other communities … who have strong feelings about the observance of the Sabbath. Sunday voting would not be acceptable to them."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 172.]
For that reason, which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border expressed clearly, we must provide options. I hope therefore that I have reassured the House—

Mr. William Ross: Party workers may also have severe difficulties in working on Saturdays or Sundays.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which applies to workers of all parties.
Let us consider amendment No. 25. I am somewhat puzzled by the thinking behind it because it would impose unnecessary restrictions on local authorities that wished to run pilot schemes to allow voting to take place on more than one day. There is no valid reason for that. The working party on electoral procedures recommended that local authorities should be given the chance to try out innovative electoral procedures. Clause 10 provides for that. The aim of the provision is to allow local authorities the freedom to try out new procedures, which, we hope, may make it easier for people to vote. Imposing restrictions such as those that the amendment proposes would do the opposite. For example, why should voting not take place at the weekend immediately before the Thursday and in the intervening days? What is the objection to offering an early voting facility for more than three days? If a local authority believes that it can run such a scheme successfully, and that it will boost turnout, we should not prohibit such innovation.
I have already said that local authorities will need to give an assurance that no voter is put at a disadvantage. They will also need to provide an assurance that
the opportunities for fraud will not be enhanced and the secrecy of the poll will be maintained.

Mr. Ross: The Government and everyone who has spoken seem to ignore the implications of multiple day voting for those who apply for postal votes. What difference will multiple day voting make to a time scale that is already tight?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman exercises a little patience, he will find that that subject will be debated later.
The debate has been useful. The amendment was not tabled as a probing amendment, but it has enabled us to consider serious issues, which could lead to disfranchisement for some people if the provisions are not implemented sensitively and properly. Nobody supports that. We now have a clearer picture of the way in which the scheme will work. I hope that it is sufficiently clear to persuade the hon. Member for Ribble Valley not to press the amendment.

Mr. Evans: The Minister has given assurances that those of strong religious beliefs will not be disadvantaged by changes in the pilot schemes or anything that follows them. I am reassured by that. Voting on multiple days will be expensive and none of us envisages polling stations being open throughout a local authority area for more than one day. However, it is possible that one polling station—perhaps at the town hall—will be open for early voting for a period of days.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, we are trying to provide some structure. For example, a polling booth might open for a couple of days, close for some strange reason and then re-open, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will take that into account in any submission on a pilot scheme made by any local authority. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: Our short series of debates has illustrated beyond all doubt the incredible difficulties that would be


caused, were we to proceed with the clause. My difficulty with it is that it apparently stems from the proposition that people have huge problems casting their vote under our present electoral arrangements and that something should be done to ease those difficulties. I do not even accept that as an analysis or a proposition. There is no evidence that people experience enormous difficulties in voting. I doubt whether many Members of the House could come forward with evidence that their constituents have informed them, either verbally or in writing, that they have had great difficulty in voting and want them to make changes. I have received no such representations and doubt whether many other Members have.
We are therefore starting from the fanciful proposition that a large number of frustrated people in this country would dearly love to vote, but find it difficult to do so under the present arrangements. The clause is completely unnecessary, but it is worse than that. Our debates have teased out not only that, but the fact that the clause would give rise to considerable dangers and difficulties in the process of voting and holding elections, requiring increasingly elaborate and costly measures and safeguards that would, in themselves, endanger that very process.
We have to weigh up whatever advantages are being claimed for the clause that would induce people who do not vote to do so, as against the real dangers and difficulties that the measures would pose. As has already been suggested, it is rather odd that, with the same electoral arrangements, we get enormous variations in turnout in different elections—local, national, European Parliament or whatever they may be. It would appear that the difference in turnout has little or nothing to do with the arrangements that are in place, but everything to do with voter interest in the different levels of government or representation. That seems to be the variable, not the location of polling booths or the number of days available for voting.
The case has not been made to support proceeding with the clause, but I am somewhat reassured that at least a series of mechanisms are available or in place to make sure that we do not rush headlong into that. The onus is initially on the relevant local authorities. Should the clause be agreed to and should the Bill proceed—I hope that it will not—it will be interesting to see how many local authorities suggest well-thought-out schemes that will satisfy the Secretary of State in the way that the Minister helpfully described. That will show us whether we should proceed with such proposals.
Ministers have assured the Committee today that those schemes will have to be examined very closely to make sure that none of the weaknesses that have been exposed in our debates would affect our voting procedures. There is another worry, but we have received a reassurance and I am glad that we have: cost has to be a consideration in respect of the draft criteria, which already exist. I wonder whether at this stage anyone has made even a rough estimate of the difference in cost between the current system and providing new procedures, voting across two or three days, a number of different polling stations and polling opportunities—as we should call them in modern parlance—and all the security and computer systems that will be required.
6 pm
I suspect that, if we are to provide a viable, secure alternative to our existing procedures, the cost could prove prohibitive. I hope that that will be taken into consideration. This will not be a cost-free exercise. I hope that when consultation—or the equivalent that the Minister mentioned—takes place, people will be told about the possible cost increase that would be involved if they expressed enthusiasm for the different voting procedures offered to them.
This would not be a cost-free option; indeed, it might well be a very costly option. People should be asked whether they would like to be able to vote on different days, and in supermarkets—oh, and by the way, they would have to pay the following costs, through either their local taxes or national taxes. It should be made clear to them that this is not a cost-free option, but one to which a price tag is attached.
I am not a computer expert—I am quite the opposite—but I ask the techno-freaks among us how they think security can be guaranteed if we are to involve computers in the voting process. As I have said, I am a layman with no interest in computers, but every day I read in the newspapers about people breaking into computer systems and corrupting them. That is bad enough when our personal finances are involved; it would be disastrous if it posed any risk of tampering with material relating to voting.
It must be obvious by now that clause 10 not only has a very flimsy basis—indeed, no basis at all—but involves real dangers and risks for our electoral process. I wonder whether that has been taken into account sufficiently. The mere fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had to table so many amendments, with the genuine aim of not only identifying the difficulties but dealing with them and providing appropriate safeguards, and the mere fact that the Minister has had to give repeated assurances about the measures that will have to be introduced locally and nationally, give some indication of the fragility of the process being proposed. That, surely, must be a great worry.
I am not inclined to support a clause that, in my view, leads us down a path that is not only unnecessary but dangerous. If we accepted it at this stage we would, at the very least, need much more reassurance later. We would need to be certain that what we were doing did not constitute an unnecessary folly and, above all, that we would not endanger the integrity of our voting system, which, as far as I know, has never been questioned so far.

Mr. Maclean: I was interested to note that, when the amendments to clause 10 were discussed—Conservative Members either supported them or distanced themselves from them, for various reasons—the Minister, with the kindness and courtesy for which he is famous, said that he was minded to accept an amendment, or accepted the spirit of it, and that we could look forward to either a revised Government amendment in due course, a Home Office circular or guidance to tidy up the problems identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
That, I think, proves the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). If we try these radical new electoral procedures, there will be many dangerous loose ends to


tie up. I am not convinced that the Government have thought all that through, nor am I convinced that local authorities have the ability to do so.
I am not minded to support clause 10, because I consider it unnecessary to do so. If we look at voting patterns around the world, we see the position of countries that have just emerged from dictatorships and are experiencing democracy for the first time. In some African countries, voters may have to travel 100 miles to polling stations, but there is a 100 per cent. turnout—or very near that—because people are desperate to vote. They have not had that right before, and they treasure it.
We all say off pat that we must make it easier for people to vote at general and local elections in this country, but our history shows that the easier we make it, the more we take it for granted and the less we vote. If we shove a mobile polling station into every supermarket, outside the door of every school as the mums are picking up the kids, and at every other location where we think that it will be convenient for people to vote, we may find that fewer and fewer people do so.
I confess that I am one of those who has, on occasion, forgotten to vote at local government elections, or to organise my postal vote. I have made that mistake. I am not happy to admit it, but I must. I suspect that, for one reason or another, other hon. Members have neglected to vote at a local government election.
That is not because the system is too difficult, we do not qualify for a postal vote, or we are suddenly called away on urgent business. These days, we can easily get a postal vote for almost any reason under the sun. If we legitimately think that, at some time in the future, we might not be in the area to vote, whatever the reason, we can get a postal vote. It is very easy, yet some of us fail or forget to do so. Seventy per cent. of the electorate at every local government election do not do so, yet voting has never been easier.
The Government's solution is to increase the number of days. They propose two, three or more days. I was worried by the Minister's reply on amendment No. 25. If I heard him correctly, he did not want any bar on the number of days that polling stations could be open for voting, or a voting system could be available for people to use; it could be three, four, five or even more days. Therefore, I am not convinced on principle that we need clause 10. The Government are making it easier for people to vote in the vain hope that it will encourage more people to do so.
One of the benefits of our present system is that, for 20 or 30 years, voting has regularly been on a Thursday. Every hon. Member has experience of going around at general elections. Probably half the people to whom we speak know that the election is on a Thursday some time soon. Other electors will not be sure what day it is on, but probably about half know without prompting from us that the general election and elections generally take place on a Thursday. I expect that that results in a reasonable number of people getting to the polling station on the right day.
If we remove that certainty, so that, in local authority areas throughout the country, voting can be on any day of the week, a greater number of the electorate than ever before will be confused about which day the poll will take place. If my experience is anything to go by, everyone to whom I speak denies that they have ever had a polling

card through the letter box. We all know that they deny even that they have had the party leaflet—the one we delivered five minutes earlier. They say, "No, I have never seen it."
That is not treating the electorate with contempt. We are the same. We deny having received letters, cards or circulars—[Interruption.] We do not deny it deliberately, but one cannot remember, with that mass of mail, some of the individual correspondence that one gets. Our electorate are the same. They get so much bumf through the letter box that they do not identify certain correspondence. If they receive polling cards two or three weeks before an election saying that they can vote on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, or Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday, and that they can do it in various places, we will have a shambles. We will have confusion. I do not think that it will increase the number of people who vote.
The Minister said that the Government do not want to include in the Bill a provision that the Home Secretary shall not approve schemes unless he is satisfied that the schemes have adequate local support, and I assume that the extent of the consultation conducted on the schemes will be one of the yardsticks that the Home Secretary uses in judging local support. I should be alarmed, therefore, if the Government are planning to put pilot schemes into operation in May 2000.
I do not see how—even if the Bill were to proceed apace through both this place and the other place—there could be adequate notification and proper local consultation on such schemes, or how such schemes could legitimately be put into operation, before May 2000. Before we could have proper consultation in a local authority area, we would come up against a very tight deadline.
I appeal to Ministers: if they are going down that route, for goodness sake, publicise it in detail; and do not urge local authorities to submit rushed schemes, which hard-pressed Home Office Ministers will have to study not at leisure, but in a great rush, so that mistakes are made. As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) suggested, such an attempt would also increase the danger of gerrymandering.
Mr. Haselhurst, if I wanted to be political—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be quite adrift as to the form of address that should be used when we are in Committee of the whole House and for this particular occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Maclean: Sir Alan, my apologies to you.
The hon. Member for Braintree made the key point on the dangers of gerrymandering. If I were to be political, and if I were a politically minded local authority, I could invent a schemr—ehich I am certain would pass Home Office scrutiny—in which, for example, I have the choice of positioning polling stations outside either Safeway supermarket in Penrith, or the Co-operative supermarket, depending on which one might suit my political purposes and provide me with the most votes.
We are also blessed in our town with two large schools—a grammar school and an excellent comprehensive school—that are 200 yds apart. I could devise a scheme, which could be open to challenge,


in which a mobile polling station would be positioned outside one school rather than another, so that I may favour people of one political persuasion over another.
The hon. Member for Braintree dealt with the effects of positioning a polling station outside one factory rather than a different factory or an office complex, where voters' political views might be slightly different.
The scheme is open to abuse, and I am not certain that the Home Office, with the best will in the world, will be able to spot some of the potential abuses that local authorities could build into it. We shall have to give very careful consideration before approving any such scheme. Although I realise that there is a Home Office circular on the matter, I should have much preferred for a schedule to be included in the Bill, building in cast-iron safeguards. Subsequently, we could invite local authorities to submit proposals that satisfy all the criteria in those safeguards, and then approve those proposals.
I do not intend to force a vote on clause 10 stand part, because I would have the support of many hon. Members, but I do not think that the clause should stand part, and I may wish to return to it.

Mr. William Ross: Following on briefly from what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has just said, in the course of an election there is severe pressure on time. That makes it difficult for legitimate political parties that are trying to get their electorate out, but it also makes it difficult for those who are trying to manipulate the system, because the compressed time scale gives them no slack. The Minister has experience in Northern Ireland and knows what I am driving at and whom I am pointing the finger at.
The concept of allowing voting over a period of days is fraught with very great dangers. Those dangers do not currently exist on this side of the Irish sea, but we have no way of knowing what the future may bring. I ask the Minister in all sincerity never to allow multiple days for voting in Northern Ireland under any circumstances and to think very carefully before going down that road in Great Britain.
The concept of voting in a supermarket is daft. When a young mother is coming out of the supermarket in the evening with her shopping and two or three children in tow, worrying about getting the tea made, the last thing that she wants is to be confronted with a polling station. I see that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who is the only hon. Lady present, is nodding. I know what my wife would have said if that had happened to her at that period in her life. We can have a fair idea of what most young mothers would say.
I was in New Zealand once when an election was being held. There were polling stations in garages along the street because the law there says that nobody in an urban area should have to walk more than a quarter of a mile to a polling station. I am not certain that it has improved the turnout. The turnout at an election has very little to do with the number of days, the period of time—although a long period on one day is probably all to the good—or the distance that people have to travel to the polling station. That may have a minor effect, but the main factor that drives people to vote is whether they want rid of the

lot that they have in office. If it is really important to them, whether the election is local, national or at some intermediate level, people will vote.
My advice to the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Government is a lesson that my party has taken on board: if a party makes it worth people's while to vote for it, it has nought to fear.

Mr. George Howarth: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has some general concerns and some that are specific to Northern Ireland. I am not as well briefed as he is on some of the difficulties there, but I am well aware that there are difficulties. I offered yesterday to meet him and I asked my office this morning to arrange discussions with him. I am anxious to address his concerns. I assure him that it is most unlikely—I think that it is not even possible—that any of the pilots would be set up in Northern Ireland because of the difficulties that he described.
Throughout my chairmanship of the working party that produced the proposals I tried to create a consensus. There was a consensus among the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and my party. All the other parties were copied in to the papers and information that the working party received. There was no lack of effort on our part to create a consensus. I am pleased that, although there have been various debates on the details of the clause, there is a consensus between the main parties that there should be pilots and that those pilots should be properly evaluated and considered with due regard paid to the potential for fraud and gerrymandering—that word has been bandied about. There is a consensus that the clause is worth a try.
The modern expression for building consensus is "big tent politics". I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is at least under the awning and that the Liberal Democrats have taken a tentative step into the tent. I regret that the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) are in a bivouac in another field.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 11

REVISION OF PROCEDURES IN THE LIGHT OF PILOT SCHEMES

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 14, line 3, leave out
(including the New Northern Ireland Assembly)".
This is a drafting amendment, essentially to remove the word "new" from the description of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I shall try to be brief. I did not attempt to catch the eye of Mr. Lord on amendment No. 24 as I understood it to refer only to England and Wales. Clause 11 allows me to say something about voting in Scotland as it deals with rolling out innovations that have been successfully piloted.


Perhaps the Minister will let me know whether there will be pilot schemes in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
Let me state again my reservations about weekend voting, particularly on Sundays. As the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has now left the Chamber, said, I raised the matter on Second Reading. The Home Secretary acknowledged that if weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days. That would be absolutely essential, although I am not sure about voting taking place over several days.
I am particularly concerned about Sunday voting, which would not be welcomed by many in my constituency.

Mr. O'Brien: I think that I can deal with the hon. Lady's concerns very briefly by telling her that local election procedures are a devolved matter and are therefore a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Mrs. Michie: Indeed, but under clause 11, if pilot schemes are accepted, the House can roll out the mechanism across the entire United Kingdom, including Scotland.

Mr. O'Brien: For general elections.

Mrs. Michie: Yes. The clause refers to elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
So, particularly in respect of general elections, Sunday voting would not be welcomed in my constituency and other parts of the highlands and islands of Scotland which still have many Gaelic speaking populations and a tradition of Sunday observance. We try to keep Sunday not just as a day of religious observance, but as a day for the family; a day that is different, a day for a rest and a little bit of peace and quiet in what has become a life of frenetic activity and, for many poor souls, of great stress.
The fourth report of the Home Affairs Committee refers to this and states at paragraph 63:
There are potential problems arising from the fact that both Saturdays and (more significantly numerically) Sundays are days of religious observance for many people. The Home Office paper noted objections on this count from both churches and individuals and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices referred to similar problems.
It also acknowledges that polls would have to be open on both Saturday and Sunday to accommodate the objections, and that would make the exercise more expensive. It is argued that the objections could be met by using a postal vote. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is not in his place, but I agree with him that people often do not apply for a postal vote in time.
A significant number of people would not vote on a Sunday. The report also suggests that people might be away at weekends. People are used to going to vote before they go to work or after they get home during the week. When the previous Government were in power, a concerted effort appeared to be made to undermine Sundays. I recall opposition to Sunday trading, and I endorse the comments my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made earlier on that subject. I also recall a debate in this Chamber that forced Scotland to allow off-licence sales

and to open betting shops on a Sunday. That was rammed through in the face of the opposition of a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament, which was regrettable.
I ask the Government to safeguard the preferences of voters and not to put more pressure on Sundays, for the sake of families, those who would have to officiate at the polling stations, and everyone else who craves a day of rest in an increasingly hectic way of life.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I wish to add two points. Community views need to be respected, and the Bill will permit that.
The first point is that it is clear to me from inquiring of people that the promise that we were given that people would not be expected to work on Sundays is being ignored. In many places, the reality is that people have no choice. If they want their jobs, they must work on Sundays. People's rights are not being respected.
The second point relates to differences between constituencies. My constituency is very different from that of my hon. Friend—there are probably not two more different constituencies in the whole of the United Kingdom. I have many constituents who live in London during the week, but who are not here at weekends. Increasing numbers of people have weekday homes and holiday or weekend homes. We must address that issue, because if we introduce weekend voting—and I do not oppose that if people want it in certain parts of the country—we must recognise that the electorate will be different.
If we introduced Sunday voting, we would have to enter an entire debate about second homes. Significant additional people would be able to vote in places in which they were not customary, working, resident members of the community. The consultation must take that into account; otherwise we would have a worse situation than the Vale of Glamorgan's, with not just 32 extra voters registered from overseas but hundreds or thousands of extra voters who had only a partial link with a constituency. That is an additional reason to take account of local and broader national considerations before we invade traditional patterns of life and community living.

Mr. William Ross: It is not often that I agree with Liberal Democrat Members, but I do on this matter, as I did whenever Sunday trading was discussed.
Clause 11(1) gives the Secretary of State very great powers. I hope that no Secretary of State would exercise them without full consultation with, and the agreement of, all the major political parties. Our electoral system must be free from taint. The possibility offered by the provision is that a Secretary of State could introduce schemes that were politically favourable to his party in any one of a number of places in the United Kingdom, but not in all. That would whip the rug from under the concept of democratic accountability and democratic elections. I hope that the Minister will give an unbreakable commitment that real consultation will be held and real agreement secured before any such schemes are introduced, even where they appear to be reasonable.
Subsection (3) states that an order made under subsection (1) could apply to local elections in Northern Ireland. That seems to fly in the face of the assurance that


I was given a few moments ago in relation to clause 10. What are the Government's intentions with regard to that provision? In Northern Ireland, pressure can be exerted in elections other than general elections. I recall that the nationalist community on one estate were not too anxious to vote in an election. After a gentleman who had served a long sentence for multiple murder visited houses there in the last hour or two of the poll, it was amazing how many people came out to vote. I hope that Ministers will consider that point carefully and remember the undertaking that has already been given.
Subsection (6) states that any order that in other circumstances could be treated as a hybrid instrument will not be so treated under the Bill. That is a serious step. I hope that the Minister will explain why the power is needed in the Bill.

Mr. Evans: We, too, are unhappy about the sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State in clause 11(1). Unless we are satisfied with the assurances given to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), we will revisit clause 11 at a later stage.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government have no plans to oblige people to vote on a Sunday. The Bill provides for ample debate about the benefits or otherwise of any pilot scheme. The Government have said repeatedly that it is our intention to consult fully on such matters. I know that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has been told by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he would be happy to discuss any proposals with him. Once we see how the pilot schemes work we can consult on their outcomes and find whether we can achieve a broad consensus on which to move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

ABSENT VOTING IN GREAT BRITAIN

Mr. Martin Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 39, line 18, at end insert—
"Closing date for applications
7A. In paragraph (2) of regulation 69 of the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 (as amended by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1997), for the words '5 p.m. on the eleventh day' there shall be substituted the words 'noon on the fifth day (in the case of an application received by post), or noon on the second day (in the case of an application made in person),'.".
The amendment would move back the deadlines for postal voting applications to the fifth day before polling or, for applications in person, to the second day. I hope that we are in the big tent of consensus both across the Committee and between Front and Back Benchers. The amendment, I hope, has the key to solving many of the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
The current applications deadline is the 11th working day before the election—in other words, the Wednesday just over a fortnight before polling day. I am told that the election administrators are adamant that they cannot deal with postal vote applications in less time. If that is so, nothing illustrates better their over-cautious approach. The Home Affairs Committee thought that it was a ludicrously early deadline, especially now that registration offices are all computerised. It will be even more ludicrous when we have postal voting on demand.
The Home Affairs Committee did not specify a deadline, but I think that the proposal in amendment No. 86 is in the spirit of its recommendation: having postal vote applications by post by the Thursday before polling day and in person by the Tuesday before polling day. Those are conservative targets. In its evidence to the Select Committee, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives said that it was possible for proxy vote applications to be granted on polling day. Back in 1993, the Plant report recommended that postal votes should be granted up to polling day, or the eve of polling day.
In Sweden, one can apply for and get a postal vote in any post office on the eve of poll and, in many cities, up to 5 pm on polling day. Indeed, in one post office in Stockholm, one can get it up till 7 pm, one hour before the polls close. That might be one reason why turnout in Sweden is more than 80 per cent., compared with 71 per cent. here. It is not because Swedish politics are that much more interesting.
It is difficult to believe that the 11th day provision was itself a concession. The previous deadline was the 13th day, which meant that people often had only four days after an election was called in which to apply for a postal vote. However, the changes in the Bill mean that electoral registration officers no longer have to consider why someone is applying for a postal vote, or satisfy themselves that the reason is genuine. They can grant the postal vote immediately; it can be sent by return of post, or handed over the counter. I do not understand why the election administrators say that it is difficult to do that in less than 11 days when in Sweden it is apparently possible to do it in one hour. In any case, the argument that it takes 11 days is rather undermined by the fact that late applications can still be dealt with up to the sixth day before an election, and applications from polling station staff up to the fourth day before.
I suggest that the Minister sets a deadline for the administrators that is closer than 11 days. I think that a five-day period is perfectly achievable. I understand that the Home Office believes in setting deadlines to get work done, and this is a classic case. Home Office Ministers need to set deadlines that the administrators can work around. Making it easier to apply for and get postal votes will solve many of the problems to do with early voting and Sunday voting. If it is easy enough to get a postal vote, people will not worry about elections being held on a Saturday or a Sunday. If it is that easy to get a postal vote, we will not need an elaborate system of early voting—we will effectively be able to go to a post office, library or town hall, and get our postal vote up to within days of the election.
There is support for the amendment from all parties; I urge the Minister to find out whether the Home Office will relent on this matter.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I fully support the proposal made by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). I am


reminded of the phrase from the Bible that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Elections are made for people to participate in, not the other way around. Although it is easy to find technical objections, it must be possible with all the modern technology to have the smallest period—literally a few hours—for people to register.
We all know that people pretend reasons to obtain postal or absent votes, for their own convenience, because they will not be around or because they are not certain whether they will be at home. We have to allow that flexibility. I hope that the Minister will be as supportive as possible. This may be one occasion when we have to say to the electoral administrators, "It may be difficult, but you have to deliver; we are a modern democracy".

Mr. William Ross: The existing time scale has been written in to prevent fraud by ensuring that applications are genuine. My electoral officers tell me that it is already extremely tight. It is difficult to understand how the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) could, a few minutes ago, have calmly accepted clause 12, which provides that the existing arrangements shall persist in Northern Ireland—something with which I am in full agreement. His intention may be good—although it is all motherhood and apple pie in my view—but it is inconceivable that the measure would work in practice. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) makes a strong argument. The principle and sentiment behind his amendment are good. The difficulty for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I is that all our present advice suggests that the practical problems of implementation foreseen by the electoral administrators would make it hard—if not impossible—to comply with such a deadline.
However, my hon. Friend has undertaken to speak to the electoral administrators—if possible, he will do so next week—to impress upon them the feelings of the Committee, to see whether we can find a way of dealing with the practicalities. I caution the Committee to take seriously the strictures of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). When we make such changes, we must be absolutely certain that we do not open the door to fraud. With those remarks, and our positive attitude, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Linton: With that assurance from my hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 13

ASSISTANCE WITH VOTING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in clause 13, page 14, line 34, at end insert—
(1A) After Rule 25 there shall be inserted—
25A— (1) In the exercise of his functions under Rule 25 above, the returning officer shall have particular regard to the accessibility of polling stations to disabled persons.

(2) The returning officer shall carry out an annual accessibility audit of each polling station, which shall in particular have regard to the matters set out in paragraph (3) below, and shall consult thereon such organisations as appear to him to be representative of disabled persons in his area.
(3) The following points shall (without prejudice to the generality of the assessment) be taken into account in deciding whether a polling station is suitable for use by disabled persons—

(a) the condition of any pathway;
(b) the distance to be covered between the curtilage of the premises in which the polling station is situated and the polling station itself;
(c) the distance from the polling station of car parking for disabled persons;
(d) the height of any kerb, and the option of any temporary ramp;
(e) the height and number of steps, and the option of any permanent or temporary ramp;
(f) the signposting of alternative accessible entrances at the main entrance and all possible approaches;
(g) the space inside the polling station to allow manoeuvring space for wheelchairs;
(h) the levels of lighting;
(i) the floor surface, and if highly polished or slippery, the availability of flat and even floor coverings;
(j) whether doormats and mat-wells are level to the floor;
(k) the width of doorways, height of door-handles, heaviness of door, and its direction of opening;
(l) the availability of hand-rails next to steps;
(m) the right to take a guide-dog into a polling station;
(n) the provision of large and clear print signs; and
(o) the use of colour contrast and markings on step edges.

25B—(1) Following the audit pursuant to Rule 25A(2) above, the returning officer shall designate such polling stations as appear to him suitable for use by disabled persons and shall publish, in at least two newspapers circulating widely in the constituency, a local radio station and otherwise as he considers fit, a list of his designations.
(2) A polling station shall not be so designated unless the returning officer intends to provide at least one wheelchair-accessible polling booth, with a ballot box being placed at a height that a person in a wheelchair can reach unaided; and it shall be the duty of the returning officer to make such provision at each designated polling station.
(3) The returning officer shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that—

(a) at least half of the polling stations for which he is responsible shall be so designated within two years of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 2000; and
(b) all polling stations shall be so designated within five years of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 2000.

(4) Details of the designated status (or otherwise) of a polling station shall be provided by the returning officer on all official poll cards.".".

The Chairman of Ways and Means: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 117, page 14, line 45, at end insert—
and
(c) temporary ramps, matting for uneven or slippery surfaces and any other such equipment which may be deemed necessary to allow wheelchair access to polling stations.".


No. 118, page 14, line 45, at end insert—
(2) If the Presiding Officer is not satisfied that a polling station is fully accessible to disabled voters, arrangements shall be made to allow such voters to attend at an alternative polling station.".

Mr. Barnes: Amendment No. 28 is the longest amendment, but this will not be the longest speech. It has been said on occasion that, in my amendments, I have stood alone, like Daniel in the lion's den. On this occasion, I have cross-party support from the hon. Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and for St. Ives (Mr. George)
Under the Bill, equipment is to be provided at polling stations to enable blind and partially sighted people to vote unaided. Those with disabilities, including an inability to read, will be able to vote with the assistance of a companion. While such proposals are welcome, there is nothing further in the Bill to enable disabled people to gain access to polling stations. This could come with promised future legislation to set up an electoral commission, or whenever we get full civil rights for disabled people.
Full access to polling stations could be added to this Bill as provided for in my unsuccessful Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1994, from which these amendments are taken. The road that I am going down is explained in written evidence that I gave to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I pointed out that Scope—the former Spastics Society—produced two reports about access to polling stations at the 1992 and 1997 elections. The latter survey—of 1,272 polling stations in 303 constituencies in Britain—discovered that 94 per cent. of polling stations had one or more access problems; 82 per cent. had no ramp; and 46 per cent. had no ballot box placed at accessible levels.
Some 6.5 million people in the UK suffer from some form of disability, and access to polling stations is a serious problem. Disabled people should have the same right to exercise their vote as that enjoyed by able-bodied people, and they should not have to resort to the use of proxy or postal votes unless it is their choice.
The key features of the amendments were contained in my Bill in 1994. First, there should be an annual accessibility audit to be carried out at polling stations by electoral registration officers, with the help of disability organisations in the area. Secondly, stations should be designated as accessible as they meet set standards. Thirdly, disabled people should have the right to vote at designated stations. Fourthly, all stations should be designated within five years.
The amendment lists the matters to be taken into account in accessibility audits, and was drawn up from information supplied at the time of the 1994 Bill by a wide range of organisations representing disabled people. The amendment lists 15 points that came out of the consultations, and all the matters discussed previously have been incorporated into my amendments.
Given the massive support that I received from the Labour party for my Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill in 1993, which pressed for rolling registers and access to polling stations for disabled

people—including the strong support of the present Prime Minister—and the massive Labour support that I received for the 1994 Bill, I assume that the case that I have just put is favoured by the Home Office.
The only questions that can remain open are of detail: whether particular difficulties need to be overcome in some areas and the method of implementation. Those problems could be ironed out and we should accept the amendment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support the amendment. What is the difference between a London taxi cab and a polling station? Every single London taxi cab is accessible to disabled people; four fifths of polling stations are not.
The time scale according to which two thirds of polling stations would be accessible in two years and all would be accessible in five years is reasonable. It is important that people are registered to vote, and we shall discuss that if we reach new clause 2. It is also important that people should be able to vote. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who has a great reputation on this matter, has persistently said, disabled people should be able to vote as easily as able-bodied people. I support the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the Committee for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) had to leave. He was in the Chamber until a short while ago, but he had to catch his train to Cornwall. He would have spoken, but he wants me to make a few points on his behalf.
It is important that such provisions are in the Bill. In spite of the much good work done by those involved in electoral administration and a lot of progress, we all know from reports such as the Scope and the Polls Apart reports that disabled people often come across poor provision in electoral services and at electoral venues.
In the interests of equality, it is not acceptable to tell people with a disability that they can have a postal or a proxy vote. Such votes have been open to abuse, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives had experience of that in the 1992 election. It was found that people took proxy votes from people who lived in a home and filled them in on their behalf. It was an unacceptable and appalling case.
People with disabilities want to be like the rest of us. They want to be able to change their minds as the election draws nearer. The fact that they are forced to take a view a week or 10 days before the election does not give them the same civil liberty that the rest of us enjoy.
Many polling stations are in public buildings. Therefore, they should be accessible, and schools should be accessible for everyday use. Schools are often used for polling, but the distance between the entrance to the school premises and the ballot box is often hugely greater than the distance from the edge of the kerb to the entrance to the school. People are sent on a wild goose chase around an obstacle course of playgrounds and corridors before they can vote. Many practical measures should be considered.
As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested, the present provision is not adequate and many people resent it hugely. It is like saying to someone with a disability that he can have a pizza with us; the only difference


is that we can go to the restaurant and that person has to have a dial-a-pizza at home. That is often the practical, crude difference.
The Minister and the Government realise that we hold strong views on this. I hope that this all-party amendment will find favour with the Committee and the Government so that many things that should have been taken for granted a long time ago appear in the Bill.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) had gone to catch a train. Many hon. Members will sympathise with his predicament.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has tabled amendments that have received broad support. The Government very much sympathise with the principle behind them, but cannot accept them in their current form. We do not accept that there should be a mandatory obligation.
The working party on electoral procedures recommended national standards on access to polling stations and drew on direct inputs from disability organisations such as Scope and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. However, their guidance was pre-empted by the Government issuing to every returning officer, in connection with the European parliamentary elections, national access standards. Those standards provide checklists for returning officers to use to assess the accessibility of polling stations and to help disabled people to enter them. A number of the standards are similar to the provisions proposed in the amendments. The working party considered whether such standards should always be mandatory for every polling station and they decided that that would not be practical.
As the working party recognised, district and borough councils are already under a statutory duty to designate as polling places locations that are accessible to the disabled, where that is practical. Returning officers' choice of locations for polling stations is often extremely limited as a direct consequence of those requirements, and it is simply not possible always to identify an accessible site. It is not reasonable to require returning officers to carry out the type of extensive adaptations proposed in the amendment to polling locations that may not be publicly owned.
The working party recommended that the Home Office should issue new and consolidated guidance to electoral administrators on all aspects of access to electoral services to support the kinds of standard that are described in the amendment.
We can achieve much of what my hon. Friend wants by way of those national standards, which will give strong guidance to electoral returning officers. They already have a statutory obligation to provide accessible centres where that is practical, and there are grants available from the Home Office to assist with provision of that access.
I offer my hon. Friend the further encouragement that clause 10 provides the opportunity for local authorities to pilot a number of schemes that may well increase accessibility, and I know that some local authorities are considering ways to increase disabled access. I hope that with that encouragement and the commitment to having

consolidated guidelines, which will improve access much more quickly than the legislation could, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Barnes: I am very disappointed by the Minister's response. Of course much will depend on the contents of the guidance that the Home Office will issue to electoral returning officers. It may well be that the guidance is very much in line with my proposals. However, if that is so, what is wrong with including such matters in the Bill? These are not points of detail that need to be put off until another day.
The Minister is not saying that the proposals will be included in future legislation developed by the Electoral Commission or a disability rights Bill. As those measures are introduced, as I hope they will be, we will have further opportunities to raise these matters.
I shall be keen to take up the Minister's point about the role that local authorities can play. I shall encourage local authorities in my area, which have a good record on disability matters and have tried to do a great deal about access for disabled people, to take on their role.
I shall live to fight another day on these matters, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 14, line 40, leave out "station" and insert "booth".

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 107, in page 14, line 45, at end insert
and—
(c) versions of the ballot paper in Braille, which shall be available from the presiding officer".

Mr. Ross: The amendments' intent is perfectly plain to everyone. The Bill says that a
large version of the ballot paper … shall be displayed inside the polling station",
but the polling station is the whole building, and that seems to me the wrong way to inform the partially sighted of the content of the ballot paper. If the display of that document is to be of any use to them, it should be in the polling booth, where individuals are trying to cast their ballot. Returning officers could of course display it in the polling station as well, if they wished, and the Government may want to require the document to be displayed in the station and the booth.
That measure is of use only to those who have are partially sighted. I have a nephew who is completely blind, so I am aware of the difficulties that such people face in those circumstances. In every constituency, several people—many more than we might think—have such a condition. It is therefore my view that, whenever we are trying to help those who are partially sighted, that help will not be sufficient—
It being Seven o 'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report progress.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Representation of the People Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall]
Question agreed to.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Ross: As I was saying, that which is sufficient for the partially sighted is nowhere near sufficient for those who are totally blind. That being so, we must consider other options.
We cannot print large ballot papers, even for the partially sighted. The ballot paper must be the same size for everyone because, if they were not, it might be possible to destroy the secrecy of the ballot once larger papers are tipped out. We do not want that. The partially sighted might need a magnifying device within the polling booth. That is something that the Minister will have to consider. However, those who are totally blind are not helped by such devices. They need the information in Braille.
As the Minister will know, Braille is produced on thickish card. I would suspect that it is more easily damaged than some folk might wish. It seems to be the only way in which the totally blind can be helped. Therefore, a version of the ballot paper in braille should be available from the presiding officer or from others in the polling booth. That should act as an overlay with a gap in which the person could mark his X, or whatever. I tabled the amendment in an effort to try to concentrate the Government's mind, or the Minister's mind, on what is needed. The totally blind should be allowed an overlay or something similar, or we allow the companion, who is referred to in other amendments, to enter the polling booth with them.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The working party on electoral procedures was very concerned to improve access to the electoral process for blind and partially sighted voters. It made a number of recommendations in this area to which the Bill gives effect. One of them was that a large-print version of the ballot paper should be displayed in the polling station. That will enable partially sighted voters to ascertain who the candidates are, and to decide whom they favour.
Amendment No. 106 would require such a large-print version of the ballot paper to be displayed in every voting compartment. Is that really necessary? So long as a large-print version is displayed prominently in the polling station, partially sighted voters will be able to study the list of candidates to decide whom they like before retiring to the privacy of the voting booth to cast their vote. I shall describe in a moment how they might do that.
In the recent European parliamentary elections, the ballot paper in the London region was 77.5 cm long. That is 31 in for those hon. Members who have not yet converted to metric. That was the normal size. I cannot begin to imagine how large a large-print version would be, but I imagine that it would be too long to fit neatly into a standard voting booth. For those reasons, I do not think that it would be wise to pass amendment No. 106.
Once having made up their mind how they want to vote, blind and partially sighted voters will be able to vote, thanks to another working party recommendation, by using a voting template. That might take the form of a piece of cardboard into which the ballot paper can be slotted. An ordinary ballot paper could be slotted into the piece of card. It would have holes cut out over the boxes in which crosses are placed so the voter, having decided by using the large sign which candidate he wants to vote for—that is, if he is partially sighted—can use his fingers to count down on the ballot paper to vote for whichever candidate he or she wishes.
We are also considering what form the voting template should take, and would welcome suggestions. One issue that we must consider is whether it would be sensible and cost-effective—it may well be—to use the voting template for Braille, so that some element of the Braille list could appear on the template. The ordinary ballot paper could still be used, so that people could put their ballot paper into the box in the ordinary way, and no one would know, when the votes were counted, whether it was that of a blind person or a person who was partially sighted.
The working party has already started to address some of the issues. Having shown that the Bill contains some useful suggestions for ways in which we would assist the blind and partially sighted, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Ross: Although I am satisfied with the answer to amendment No. 106, I am not satisfied with the answer given to amendment No. 107. If there were 36 names on the ballot paper, what size would the large-print version be in the polling station? It would cover a wall of the school. In Northern Ireland, we are familiar with quite long lists under the proportional representation system.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the suggestion. It depends on the amount of sight that the individual has, which can range from pretty well non-existent to reasonably good. However, having heard what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 15, leave out lines 19 to 21.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 109, in page 15, line 30, leave out from "election" to end of line 32.

Mr. Ross: These amendments are in the same general spirit as the previous two. As the Bill is drafted, it seems that a companion can assist only two people, both of whom are close relations, or that the companion must be eligible to vote in that election. Those are two entirely different classes of people who can go into a polling booth with a disabled person to help him or her vote. We must think more carefully about the provision.
The relatives are specified in the words that I seek to remove through amendment No. 109. They are the
father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son or daughter of the voter
and have
attained the age of 18 years.


Those individuals do not need to be able to vote in the election—in other words, they may live in a different ward or constituency.
However, any person
who is entitled to vote as an elector
—not a relation at all—can go along and act as a companion, to help the disabled person to vote. Why, then, is it necessary to list all the close relations? There must be sensible explanation, or have officials simply got into a twist when they tried to define who could act as a companion?
The relations need not be able to vote in the elections. They may live 100 miles away and come to help the disabled voter. Some people have few relations or none living locally, and there might be three disabled people living in one house, who might all need help and who might have only one relative living close by.
A Conservative elector living in a mining village may not be willing to ask another resident of that village for help. I can think of similar situations, for different reasons, in Northern Ireland. The difficulties are not fully addressed in the Government's proposals.
I am curious as to why the companion should be aged 18 or more. How is that to be established? If the companion is an immediate relation or is entitled to vote in the election, he or she may be on the list of electors and therefore obviously over 18, but if the companion is from some distance away, or is simply missing from the register for whatever reason, there is no way that the presiding officer, who apparently has to make the decision in such cases, can know whether the person is over 18 or not. He or she could be 16 or 17. There is therefore a potential difficulty.
I do not understand why one elector can assist two people. In Northern Ireland, one can act as a witness for only one individual—even a member of one's family—who applies for a postal or proxy vote. As the Under-secretary of State for Northern Ireland knows, that has caused all sorts of problems. It would be preferable if the person—a family member or party worker, who is often known to the electoral officers—could assist, or witness papers for any number of people. That would facilitate checking whether the papers and applications were genuine. I do not understand why the restriction is necessary.
I tabled an amendment—No. 110, which was not called—to discover why there has to be a declaration, which is presumably signed, in the polling station when the vote is cast. At 10 am, there are not many people in the polling station. However, at 8 pm or 9 pm, an enormous number of people might be waiting to vote. They will not want any sort of delay. Having to make a declaration will create a delay. Why does the Bill provide that people have to sign a piece of paper, which the presiding officer has to accept, before they can vote?
I hope that the Minister has a reasonable answer to those points. If not, perhaps he will reconsider them, because there are problems with the provision.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman made several interesting points, which deserve consideration. I should like to give them that consideration and, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall write to him about the issues that he raised.
The provision attempts to assist voters who may benefit from being accompanied. I hope that we can take account of some of the hon. Gentleman's points, tackle them through correspondence and perhaps discuss them later.

Mr. Ross: In the light of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 17, line 16, leave out "extends" and insert
and paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 5 extend".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 39, line 28, at end insert—
"City of London (Various Powers) Act 1957 (c. x)
1ZA.—(1) Section 8 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1957 (manner of voting at ward elections) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (application of provisions of 1983 Act), after the entry relating to section 3 of the 1983 Act insert—
section 3A (disfranchisement of offenders detained in mental hospitals);".
(3) In subsection (2), (application of provisions about absent voting) for "sections 5 to 9 and 12(3) and (4) of the Representation of the People Act 1985" substitute "Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000".
(4) In subsections (4) and (5) (supplementary provisions), for "1985" (wherever occurring) substitute "2000".".
No. 94, in page 41, line 34, at end insert—
"Finance Act 1996 (c. 8)
14. In section 200 of the Finance Act 1996 (domicile for tax purposes of overseas electors), in subsection (3)(a), for the words from "mentioned in" to "section 1" substitute "of parliamentary electors in pursuance of such a declaration as is mentioned in section 1(1)(a)".".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 42, line 23, column 3, at end insert—



"Section 11 (b) (except the final "and").



In Schedule 2, paragraph 5 and Part II.".

No. 96, in page 42, line 27, leave out "and 18' and insert ", 18 and 78".

No. 97, in page 42, line 27, at end insert—


"1989 c. 3.
Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.
Section 11(8). In section 13(7), the Act 1989. words ", except section 11(8),".


1989 c. 28.
Representation of the People Act 1989.
Sections 1 to 4.".

No. 98, in page 42, line 29, at end insert—


"1994 c. 19.
Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
In Schedule 16, paragraph 74(1).".

No. 99, in page 42, line 35, at end insert—


"1999 c. 1.
European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999.
In Schedule 3, paragraph 3.".

No. 100, in page 43, line 6, column 3, at beginning insert "Section 11(1).".—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause 2

SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR REGISTRATION WHEN ELECTION ANNOUNCED

.—In paragraph 28(1) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act, for the words "as soon as practicable" there shall be substituted the words "within four days of the dissolution of Parliament" and the following paragraph shall be added—
3A.—(1) The returning officer shall forthwith notify the registration officer that he has issued the official poll cards.
(2) When the registration officer has been notified by the returning officer of the issue of official poll cards for any election, he shall, in at least two newspapers circulating widely in his area, a local radio station and otherwise as he considers fit, place advertisements—

(a) requesting persons failing to receive official poll cards to check that their names are on the register; and
(b) setting out a form on which application may be made for registration.".".—[Mr. Barnes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My interest has always been to try to get as full a franchise as we can from those who are eligible to be placed on registers. The new clause seeks the early issue of polling cards and a great deal of publicity about their issue to alert people to the fact that polling cards are available. Those cards should tell people whether they are on the register and if they do not receive one they need to check their position. Some may be on the register, but others should still have the opportunity to get themselves registered.
My problem, because my previous amendments have been lost, is that at general elections there is only a small window of opportunity—between the dissolution of Parliament and the close of nominations—for people to get themselves on to electoral registers. That is the last point at which registers could be published. Had previous amendments been accepted, there would have been much wider opportunities for getting people on to registers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an all-party new clause and I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to it. There are two issues: making sure that proper publicity is

given to the process and to people's entitlement to vote, which we have all argued for in different ways, and balancing that with the fact that people should know that they do not need a polling card to vote. One of the great questions that we are all asked is, "I haven't had a card, so will I be allowed to vote?" We all say, "Yes, go along and give your name and address." We must strike a balance: we must get it across to people that they should be on the electoral register, but we must also tell them that, although they should check beforehand if they are concerned, or talk to someone and get on the list in the days remaining, they should go to vote anyway if they think that they should be on the list.
I hope that the spirit, if not the drafting, of the new clause will find favour with the Minister. On behalf of the Members from all three parties who tabled it, I hope that we can do more to make sure that there is not the confusion, and the resultant inaction, that we have too often heard about from our constituents and other electors.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Although the new clause has been tabled for good reasons, it contains a number of pitfalls. The obligation on returning officers to send out the official poll card for a general election within four days of the dissolution of Parliament would put, even in these days of computer technology, a great deal of stress and pressure on officers, who have to provide hundreds of thousands of poll cards. Sometimes that takes several days merely to organise. The timing of general elections is uncertain and there are plenty of examples of Prime Ministers calling snap general elections. There have been very brief periods between such announcements and dissolution.

Mr. Evans: Is that a hint?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman asks from a sedentary position whether that is a hint. I am afraid I do not know, but it is not intended as such. Returning officers have told us that the new clause would place such a heavy burden on them that they could not comply with such time scales. Given that the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and those who support him are sincere and in many ways laudable, perhaps it would be useful to discuss the proposal with my officials. Although I cannot support the new clause, I hope to be able to consider the idea behind it and write to him and his supporters in due course.

Mr. Barnes: I am happy to have that idea examined and hope that some of the other amendments that I tabled, which tied in with the new clause and would have allowed people who have not been fully registered to get back on registers, will be taken into account. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

OFFICIAL MARK ON BALLOT PAPER

.—In Schedule 1 (Parliamentary Elections Rules) of the 1983 Act, Rule 20 shall be omitted.".—[Mr. Linton.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Linton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause embodies a recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee to abolish the antiquated and entirely pointless practice of placing an official perforated mark on ballot papers before they are handed to electors. At the previous election, 2,169 voters were disfranchised—their votes rejected—simply because the official mark had been left off the ballot paper by mistake. Indeed, that very nearly happened to me. The polling station clerk was momentarily distracted—perhaps because I was the candidate, but I do not know—and handed me the ballot paper without franking it. Fortunately, the presiding officer was at her left shoulder to remind her of that. It made no difference to me, but it did at Winchester, where an election was won by two votes. The Conservative candidate later had the result declared null and void, on the pedantic basis that he would have won if the unfranked papers had been rejected. The voters made clear what they thought of that by increasing the original winner's majority from two to, I think, 28,000; but the by-election probably cost the parties about a quarter of a million pounds.
What has the official mark achieved? In the last five elections, it has led to the rejection of 13,000 ballot papers as a result of human error. That is not a criticism of the clerks; the job is very dull and, in terms of percentages, the number of unfranked papers is very small. It is easy to forget, partly because it is such a pointless exercise. Who wants the official mark? Chief executives want it to be abolished in favour of watermarking or bar coding; the Liberal Democrats say that it should be abolished, and that numbering of ballot papers is sufficient; the Conservatives say that they would not oppose the investigation of a different method of marking ballot papers. That is what they told the Home Affairs Committee.
The Committee had recommended the abolition of franking twice, first in its 1982 report and then in its 1998 report. On both occasions, the recommendation was unanimous. When the deputy chairman of the Association of Electoral Administrators gave evidence to the Committee, he was asked what change in the electoral system he would most like to see. He said that he would like the official mark to be abolished. So far, the Home Office has merely said that the matter requires reconsideration.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will try to persuade the Home Office to take this small step. In many respects, our elections are still conducted as they were in the Victorian era. That is the view of the election administrators themselves. The franking machine is the most Victorian of our electoral practices: it causes endless hassle for polling station clerks, thousands of disqualified voters at every election, and unnecessary by-elections such as the one at Winchester, and achieves absolutely nothing. I hope that Ministers will tell the registration officers to use watermarked papers, or whatever security method they consider appropriate; but for goodness sake, let us get rid of the franking machines.

Mr. O'Brien: The Home Affairs Committee said that there should be some mark or identifier on ballot papers to enable forgers to be detected, and suggested that the Home Office and electoral administrators should try to find a more up-to-date method, and should stamp each ballot paper individually.
I have considerable sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), but I cannot accept the amendment at this stage, because we have not sorted out the alternative mark or identifier, and I think that we need to study the position further. I hope that, having heard that, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the motion. We hope to write to him explaining how we shall deal with the matter in due course.

Mr. Linton: I am not convinced that we need to decide on a new method of security before abolishing franking. The returning officer at the Winchester by-election made the holes in the ballot papers with a fork. The notion that franking has any security value in this day and age is ludicrous. It may have worked as a security method in 1872, when it was introduced, but it is not secure any more. By all means let us have a more secure system, but we might as well get rid of the franking machine right now.
In the circumstances, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn
Bill reported, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Farming (East Anglia)

Mr. Eric Pickles: I present a petition to the House that enjoys cross-party support in East Anglia. It is composed of 1,450 signatures. The most remarkable thing is that it is not from members of the public, but from farmers themselves. Given the number of farmers in East Anglia who are affected by the scheme, practically 100 per cent. have signed the petition.
The farmers are concerned that, in the whole of East Anglia, there is no slaughterhouse operating the over-30-months scheme. They are desperately concerned that that will cause extra suffering to cattle that are to be slaughtered. The petition reads:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of Fanners in the Parliamentary Constituency of Brentwood and Ongar and from the area of East Anglia
Declares that we are distressed at the removal of the Over Thirty Months Scheme slaughter facilities at Cheale Meats Limited at Brentwood and the lack of proper alternative facilities within our geographical location.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to examine the decision made by the Intervention Board depriving East Anglia of this badly needed facility.
And the Petitioners remain etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Child Labour

Mr. Andy King: The petition that I present was given me by a group of young people in Rugby following their Christmas cracker appeal. They were part of the Big Take youth project initiative "Shout for justice and campaign for freedom." Those young


people wish to bring to the House's attention their concerns about the fate of young people throughout the world. The petition states:
This Petition of the people of Rugby Warwickshire and others, declares that Her Majesty's Government has ratified the convention on the rights of the child and is therefore committed to children's rights and therefore has a responsibility to do all it can to help end the exploitation of child labourers in overseas countries.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should urge the Secretary of State for International Development that all aid to such countries as Indonesia, India, Mali and Pakistan where child labour is known to be an extensive problem should have a reasonable percentage of aid linked to a programme of education for the child labourers.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — NHS (West Surrey)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the Speaker for choosing for debate the subject of the health service in west Surrey, just as I am to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), whose constituents are as affected as mine are by the intolerable crisis that is threatening our region.
West Surrey is often described—it is so again in the latest documents from our health authority—as the healthiest and wealthiest part of Britain. Why then do we have a hospital with the longest accident and emergency admission times of any hospital in the country? If we are the healthiest and wealthiest, why do we have a health authority with the most people waiting up to 18 months, with many critical cases almost going over that period as I speak?
In west Surrey, we pay the highest taxes per head of any part of the UK, yet we have the lowest health spending per head of any part of the UK. We are not asking for special treatment, but we deserve a fair deal for the people whom we represent.
As I speak, the chief executive of West Surrey health authority is meeting doctors and nurses at the local hospital in Guildford to explain the latest round of cuts that are being imposed on our service as a result of the Government's attitude up to now and of the cuts that they are imposing on our finances. That cannot be due to wastefulness or inefficiency, because we have some of the United Kingdom's most efficient hospitals. Figures released last week by the NHS executive showed that both Frimley Park and the Royal Surrey were among the country's most efficient hospitals.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has just mentioned Frimley Park hospital, which is in my own constituency. Does he agree that primary care groups in the West Surrey health area have particular concerns in addition to the ones that he has been describing? Will he confirm that he has met the chairman of the Camberley primary care group, Dr. Geoff Roberts—to whom I have spoken—who is particularly concerned that his pleas to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health to resist cuts—particularly a £500,000 cut—in local child health services have fallen on deaf ears?
Will my hon. Friend also confirm that there is particular concern that the number of district nurses is about to be cut, and that another £150,000 will be cut from district nursing? As they are the very people who deal with terminally ill cancer patients and administer influenza vaccinations, is that not of particular concern?

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend has made the case extremely well. Dr. Roberts, many other doctors and nurses, and many of our constituents have been writing to west Surrey Members about the depth of their concern at the crisis we are facing.
We have outstanding staff and management in our local health service. They do an incredible job, but they are being asked to do it under impossible conditions. We have an accident and emergency unit serving a catchment area around Guildford of 250,000 people, but it is now under threat of closure. In the past two years, a quarter of the beds in our local health system have been scrapped. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, in the next 12 months, 16 of our full-time-equivalent nurse posts in the community will be taken away from us.
Recently, a vital study revealed how Croydon was affected by similar cuts, and made it clear that such cuts only store up more problems for the future, as carers at home realise that they cannot cope and ask that their family member be admitted to hospital instead.
In some cases, people waiting for critical heart tests have been asked to wait too long. X-rays for cancer used to be brought back immediately, but there is now a wait of up to two months, while patients develop complications. Physiotherapy—a preventive medicine—was always immediately available, but there is now an eight-week wait before it can be given. Although the situation is unsustainable, demand has been stable. The number of emergency admissions at the Royal Surrey has risen by only 3 per cent. in the past two years.
On a typical day at the Royal Surrey County hospital, nine or 10 elective cases are cancelled, many of whom have reached the 18-month maximum wait or are urgent cancer cases. Before the Christmas flu outbreak, I was given access to internal papers describing one typical day. On 2 December, 18 cases—10 cancer cases and eight long-waiters—were to be admitted for elective surgery, but only nine beds were available. So six long waiters and three cancer cases had to be sent home—in direct contravention of all the aspirations that Conservative Members always had for the NHS, and which we thought that we shared with Labour Members.
Does the Minister think that the patients who were sent home on that day were—according to her formula, which tells the Government that we are asking for too much in our area—part of the excess health demand in west Surrey? Is she happy that the Government are sending away 18-month and cancer cases—which the previous Government decided to pay for, although the formula told us that we should not? We felt that it was more important to listen to Surrey's doctors than to a formula devised, 10 years ago, by professors in York.
We know how the previous Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), skewed the formula even further against our area. Nine years ago, Gateshead and Guildford had similar per capita funding. Now Gateshead is funded at 30 per cent. more than Guildford. I do not resent for one moment the benefits that that is producing for the people of Gateshead—one of the poorest areas of our country. I am however asking the Minister and the Government to recognise that, in the fast lane of Britain's economy, we have our own health pressures and our own health needs which must be seen to.
The overspending, as it was called, that we have lost in Surrey over the past four years amounts to £8 million a year. It came to more than that in some years. We broke even in one year—1998-99—but that was the year when waiting lists got ever longer and we simply stored up more

trouble for the future. Our case is that the £8 million so-called overspend reflects the true level of demand in our area. We need an immediate adjustment to the Government's figures to reflect the real needs of the people whom we represent.
Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister accused the Conservatives of hatching a policy that means that
anyone facing one of a number of non-urgent operations, including cataracts … will be forced to take out private health insurance."— [Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 275.]
I have a letter from a constituent whose wife waited so long for her cataract operations that she went blind in both eyes. That is when he was forced, with no insurance policy, to go private and have the operation done for her. That is how the Government are forcing people in our area to go private.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I can strongly confirm what my hon. Friend is saying. When a woman has to wait four months and two cancellations before vaginal cancer is detected, when someone has to wait almost 18 months for a hysterectomy, when we find that the out-patient wait just to see an orthopaedic consultant has gone from three or four months to nine months, when people are waiting in casualty not for 24 hours, but for three, four or even five days, local people ask what the message is. If the Government are forcing people to go privately by stealth, let them at least have the courage to say so. People are facing a sharply deteriorating service. They are frightened for themselves. Professionals are in despair. Things have gone far enough. It is time the Government listened and realised the damage that is being inflicted on people throughout our area.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding us that people are being forced to go private and it is the old, the sick and the very poor who bear the brunt of the Government's policies because they have no alternative. At least when we had a policy of encouraging private care we did it through a tax incentive, which this Government took away. We warned at the time that that would create the greatest pressure in the areas of greatest take-up. That is what has happened in west Surrey in the past two years.
Our local health authority is still saying that at every opportunity local specialists should encourage people to use the private sector. Item 5 of the latest NHS document states:
People who have other entitlements to health care should make maximum use of them.
That is the Government's answer to the health problems of west Surrey—they are telling people that they can all afford to go private. Not all our constituents can afford it, however.
We provided an incentive to expand the private sector. This Government are providing a penalty. Tragically, in some cases it is a death penalty. Andy Williams was 29 years old when he developed a serious heart complaint. His specialist at the Royal Surrey hospital wrote to me to say that two years ago it would have been diagnosed within three months. Because the waiting times


for that diagnosis have gone up to nearly a year, Andy died before he could be dealt with. His parents live in South Africa. His father wrote to me to say:
fortunately in Durban our medical set up at the present time is still very good. The cardiologists here with rooms at a hospital have access to this equipment, and this facility is available to all.
Truly, in west Surrey, as in some other parts of the country, we have sunk to a third-world service for our constituents.
I could cite many other cases. Many people have written to my colleagues and me. The Government's desire to achieve their targets for waiting lists has resulted in a long list of people who have suffered, some of whom are no longer with us.
That is why I have three key demands for the Minister. First, will she make it clear that the Government will safeguard the future of the present accident and emergency units at Frimley Park and the Royal Surrey in Guildford, as well as the excellent new facility at St. Peter's, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge? That would relieve a great deal of anxiety about the effects of such a closure.
Secondly, is she prepared to waive the £18 million so-called deficit from the time of the previous Government, when we recognised the need for health care in Surrey based on what the doctors were telling us, rather than on the formula? How can it be right that patients this year should pay a penalty—in the form of having to repay that money—just because previous patients were properly looked after under a Conservative Government?
Thirdly, out of the many extra pots of money that the Government have given themselves to make discretionary payments, will the Minister authorise the money that we need to get our real waiting lists and waiting times in line? She may be aware that a new admissions unit at a budget cost of £250,000 is due to be opened in the next few weeks. We very much hope that she will be the first Minister this Parliament to visit the Royal Surrey and our health region and hear what is going on. When she does so, will she make sure that the new unit does not have to close at the beginning of the next financial year, as according to the latest document from the health authority, absolutely no money is available to fund it?
Allan Willett, chairman of the South East of England development agency, confirmed to me again today that that organisation recognises the vital importance of a proper health service to keeping our local economy thriving and attracting inward investment. We ask the Minister to act not just in the interests of our constituents, but so that we can continue to pay our very large share for the services that are required up and down the country through the taxes that we pay. If Surrey is to continue to be the powerhouse of the British economy, we must have the support services that we need to maintain ourselves under the pressures that that creates.
Ten years ago, the previous Government introduced a new allocation of funds favouring Labour areas at the expense of Conservative ones. We are asking the present Government to be equally bipartisan and to recognise that the effects of that formula have gone too far and need to be reined in. In the interests of justice, fairness and the reputation of the Minister and the Government, I ask her to listen.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on securing tonight's debate on NHS provision in west Surrey.
Conservative Members are doing the national health service and those working in it a great disservice by continually criticising those who tirelessly and on a daily basis work hard for their communities. Just to put the record straight, let me take the opportunity to thank everyone in the NHS, including those in west Surrey, on behalf of the House for their tremendous work over the winter period. They coped with extra pressure due to flu and the extended holiday over Christmas and the millennium. That needed to be put on record.
The Government are committed to a high-quality NHS wherever our citizens live. Our principle is that the very best should be available to everyone. The previous Government did their very best to dismantle and erode that principle.
Tonight's debate is about west Surrey, but I cannot reply without at least in part drawing on the national picture. In 1997, we inherited a disgraceful state of affairs. There were record waiting lists, which were rising, and debts were being built up year after year. Nationally, they amounted to £450 million and a £20 million deficit had built up in west Surrey. The number of nurses training had been cut and investment in building was the lowest in 10 years. The system set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital and the pay system was archaic and inflexible.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If the hon. Lady is right, having praised NHS staff, why is she now challenging their credibility? I have here letters from doctors throughout the area saying that waiting times have increased dramatically since her party came to power. It has shut 111 beds and there are more than 300 nurse vacancies. If the situation was so bad and is now so good, why should all those doctors be writing with such strong feelings and why have we had unprecedented numbers of complaints from patients and their families who are in despair?

Ms Stuart: If the right hon. Lady would care to listen to the rest of my speech, I will answer some of her questions. She has on previous occasions raised individual cases in the House and I have invited her formally to follow up those cases, but she has not written to me. Similarly, accusations were made earlier about waiting times in casualty departments of four to five days. If that has happened, perhaps she would do me the courtesy of writing to me about such cases.

Mrs. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I gave the Secretary of State for Health the details of those cases when I met him before Christmas—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Lady knows that that is a point of debate. This is a half-hour Adjournment debate raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) about a specific matter relating to his constituency and everyone would do better to direct their thoughts and words to that subject.

Ms Stuart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Things are starting to change after the disgraceful situation that


we inherited. Investment in accident and emergency has increased, waiting lists are lower than they were in 1997 and falling. Waiting times will improve. We have seen the highest level of nurse recruitment and an expansion in the role played by nurses. More money has been made available for suspected cancer patients and cardiac patients. We have a 10-year programme.
Great concern has been expressed forcefully tonight by hon. Members about the situation in west Surrey. West Surrey health authority has spent more than its allocation. It had to be bailed out two years ago when it ran up a huge deficit to the tune of £18 million, and that has to be repaid because this Government are interested in a sustainable and long-term investment.
The current funding allocation for West Surrey health authority for 1999-2000—the hon. Member for Guildford said that he wanted a fair system—is £371 million, which is a cash increase of £19.3 million, or 5.48 per cent. That is £8.5 million, or 2.35 per cent., more than the fair share target. The allocation per weighted head of population in west Surrey is £643, but the national average in England is £629. For 2000-01, the south-east region will receive £5.4 billion and west Surrey will receive £394 million, which is a cash increase of £23.2 million or 6.2 per cent.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does the Minister understand that all those weighted figures go back to the same flawed formula that said that Surrey was overspending when it was simply meeting core health needs? Does she further understand that by demanding back that £18 million she has not put any new money into the system?

Ms Stuart: Conservative Members continually call for more money for their constituents, but do not vote for more money for the NHS and they call our proposals to increase cash for the NHS reckless. We want long-term, decent investment in the health service. I fully agree that future allocations should be fairer, but they must be fair for everyone.
We are reviewing the weighted capitation formula because we want it to be fairer, but it must provide for the NHS of the future. At the moment, the review is at an early stage and further changes are frozen until 2002 because we want some stability and certainty in the system. Even with the generous funding for west Surrey, change is still needed. Conservative Members portray the situation as driven simply by financial needs, but that is not the case. We expect the health authority to fulfil its statutory duty to live within its means, but other changes need to be made in west Surrey to bring the service up to date, and to take into account changes in medical practice, technology and the training needs of doctors
The health authority needs to live within its means and changes are needed to achieve that quickly. That means some hard choices, because west Surrey deserves a service that is modern, sustainable and affordable and that meets the needs of the people of west Surrey. A number of proposed changes are in hand.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister say on which of the nine cases that I described there has been overspending?

Ms Stuart: Changes in the service structure have to be made to deal with such matters. West Surrey does not have a sustainable health economy. Consultation on some of the long-term changes is already complete. I have taken careful note of the objections made by the community health council to the changes at the Ashford hospital and at St. Peter's hospital, and an announcement will be made soon.
I see that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) has a copy of the document "Ensuring a Sustainable NHS—Phase II". That document asks for comments, and I hope that all hon. Members affected by the consultation process will respond. We are also in the process of setting up an independent advisory panel, which will help to ensure local consensus on the changes.
Somehow, the good news seems to escape the consciousness radar of Conservative Members. I shall describe some of the investment that has been made in west Surrey. Between June 1997 and October 1999, the number of day cases and the in-patient waiting list fell by 13 per cent. Between 1996 and 1999, there was a 21 per cent. increase in the number of out-patients attended to. An extra £3 million was devoted to reducing in-patient and day cases. A further £351,000 has already been spent to reduce out-patient waiting times, and £1.2 million has been invested in local accident and emergency departments. The Royal Surrey hospital received £276,000 for a new admissions unit.
Those changes in the provision were necessary to achieve a sustainable health service. Frimley Park hospital received more than £500,000 for new X-ray and IT equipment. The Ashford, St. Peter's and Frimley Park hospitals, in conjunction with local GPs, took part in one of the pilot projects for on-the-spot booking. Under that system, when patients visit out-patient clinics, doctors are able to book dates for operations. In addition, GPs are able to make out-patient appointments, with the result that dates are arranged to suit the convenience of patients.
A new primary care centre serving Weybridge and Woking is now operational. Investment of about £4 million has been made in health centre facilities and community hospital services. A pilot for a primary care walk-in centre is being developed in Weybridge, and NHS Direct is already available in south-west Surrey. Conservative Members smile at NHS Direct, but it has had a huge impact in the area.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The core of the NHS are the acute and nursing services. Will the Minister address the question of how they are being decimated in the area?

Ms Stuart: Fundamental changes have to be made to the health economy. We are putting in extra money to accomplish those changes. Claims that west Surrey never gets the extra money that it applies for are not substantiated, as the list that I have given proves. Hospitals have made tremendous progress in recruiting nurses. The previous Administration slashed the numbers of nurses in training. We are providing extra training places and recruiting extra nurses.
Eighteen months ago, the vacancy factor at the Royal Surrey hospital was 17 per cent., which meant that the hospital was lacking 310 qualified nurses. By next month, the factor will have fallen to 10 per cent. That huge


improvement must be recognised. At its recent open day, the hospital recruited another 11 nurses who wanted to return to work.
Social services spending in Surrey has increased by 4.9 per cent., compared with a national average of 4.4 per cent. The claim that west Surrey does not get its fair share of money simply does not stand up when we look at the figures.
I should like to take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation to come to west Surrey. I know that accusations have been made in the House that Ministers never visit west Surrey, but I am very happy to do so. More to the point, I thought that it was very fitting to choose St. Valentine's day, 14 February, to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eight o'clock.